I hold to the principle that the plain sense of the text is to be taken unless the context gives a clear indication or explanation that it is figurative or that a figure of speech, such as a synecdoche, is being used. Further, all verses that deal with a subject must be examined before arriving at a conclusive doctrine. Bringing the jury in on subjects without an examination of all pertinent statements is presumptive. Since we are discussing the Word, such methods must be even more rigorously shunned.
My concern with the preterist view is that it is raising more questions than it is answering. In order for the handful of verses to be accepted literally, which may have viable alternative explanations, hundreds of other verses throughout scripture must be relegated to a figurative status and according to your position must not be plainly taken! I find this arbitrary and prejudicial.
As to your questions:
"Father forgive them" is just that.
In John 17, the prayer is specifically about the believer (the ones that the Father had given Him, both current and later ones), therefore those of the world cannot be included in the promises requested, such as being one as He (Jesus) and the Father are one. For how could those of the world be fit to receive of those promises? So, I can see that He is being specific, not universal in the statement, because He qualifies the objects of the prayer.
As to my questions, I suppose that they all have figurative meanings only, according to your view. Is that so?
I'd be happy to discuss the verses you find fundamental to your position.
Thanks.
Stan |
