mens hair loss

No Future in the Past – 09.19.2012

by Michael J Loomis on September 20, 2012

No Future in the Past with Rivers of Eden.

Wednesday evenings at 4:30 P.M. Pacific/7:30 P.M. Eastern.

Rivers of Eden
Rivers will be presenting his unique perspective on fulfillment. He will be spending the next few weeks doing some groundwork.

Tonight Rivers addressed questions of listeners from last weeks broadcast.

Listen to last weeks broadcast HERE. 


{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

frank speer December 6, 2012 at 9:53 am

At 1:11 Rivers says, “I want to show people what the TRUE IMPLICATIONS of Full Preterism are” Awesome – please do.

I will ask the Q flat out…


frank speer December 6, 2012 at 10:33 am


Why COULDN’T the “House of David” be an eternal house that INCLUDES all Christians from the first century forward? Why is that NOT POSSIBLE?

frank speer December 6, 2012 at 10:48 am

Q: Who were “THE RIGHTEOUS” in Sodom that Abe was asking the angel about? Were they Israelites too? Jesus said it would be “more tolerable” on the Judgment day (1st century) for Sodom than for Judah – who was it that would be judged from Sodom? Israelites?

frank speer December 6, 2012 at 11:01 am

Rivers seems to struggle a bit with the Eph 3:20-21 passage. On the one hand he says that the ends of THE AGES (previous Hebrew ages) had come upon that first century generation (I agree) – but then when he comes the the PLURAL “ages coming” in Eph 3 – he bumbles around it. How could multiple ages (plural) be coming upon them? While it is true that THE CONSUMMATION of the ages were coming upon them – but the text doesn’t say that.

frank speer December 6, 2012 at 11:08 am

It certainly seems plausible to me that the ends of the HEBREW ages consummated in the first century and the church “ages to come” (after the Parousia) continue on afterward – where God and Christ are glorified forever. Why is this NOT possible? Even R.O.E. says that the Eph 3:20-21 passage COULD MEAN future ages.

frank speer December 6, 2012 at 11:19 am

I agree with R.O.E. – Preston, Stevens, Bell etc. SHOULD come on and discuss these things with ROE – but – to answer his Q of WHY they refuse – perhaps it is because Rivers flat out calls their perspective “NONSENSE” – (i heard him do so several times on this show) – this does not sound like open-mindedness and a willingness to learn and if the others are doing the same to ROE they are wrong also and ought to stop.

Perhaps an apology and cordial invitation would suffice? If not – than something is wrong.

Dale December 8, 2012 at 9:10 am

Frank, I agree with your last comment. This bothered me when I was still a full preterist. Rivers has been begging for an opportunity to debate Don Preston, but Don simply ignores him. It seemed to me to be a perfect opportunity for Don to show Rivers the errors in his thinking and help everyone else in the process. I often wondered why Don wouldn’t do it since he is always eager to debate a futurist. Is Don afraid of something? Does Don secretly realize what the real ramifications are for the full preterist position? I have also wondered why nobody has chosen to debate anyone from the Universal Reconciliation camp of full preterists. Both of these “Hyper-Preterist” positions have needed to be PUBLICLY addressed for some time now, but all I hear is silence from the orthodox full preterist circle! Several months ago I realized that most of the orthodox full preterists (no names needed) still held onto a lot of their orthodox christian pre-suppositions which made it confusing and very hard to fully embrace full preterism. This is why we have so many different full preterist views imo. I started asking a lot of tough questions which I felt I needed an answer for, but I either got no answers or answers which included basic christian jargon. That isn’t good enough for me. I believe there are more ramifications to a full preterist position than full preterists are willing to admit and address. Audience relevance is one of them. They play the card when it suits them, but explain it away when it doesn’t. This is where I see a lot of their orthodox pre-suppositions coming into play. Why is eschatology the only thing full preterists are interested in talking about? What about all of the other doctrines? How do they fit into the full prterist paradigm? Most full preterists are unwilling to look at them with fulfilled eyes. They keep seeing them with their orthodox pre-suppositions and end up mixing both paradigms together. As I said before, I can somewhat understand why Sam Frost left full preterism. He saw it’s ultimate conclusions and was forced back to orthodoxy. Unfortunately, he and others who have left haven’t considered any other alternatives. I have, and have found answers to all of the questions which used to bother me. I am more at peace with God now than I ever have been. Sure, I have a new set of questions that I’m asking and pursuing, but when will we ever be confident that we know everything? Not in this lifetime!

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: