okay help me understand why a futurist is a futurist
It is really very simple: we view the Prophecy of Scripture that has not taken place to occur in the future.
All Prophecy will be fulfilled, and there is quite a bit that has not yet taken place. For example, one issue that is very controversial is the Rapture. We see a future fulfillment of the catching away he describes, which is said to include all living believers. Nowhere in Revelation is that spoken about, and in fact the only Rapture that is seen involves the Two Witnesses of ch.11.
Revelation is often dismissed due to the figurative language used, but I would suggest we have, despite parenthetical portions, a sequential series of events given us, which describes the Tribulation from beginning to end in chronological order.
Another issue would be the thousand year Reign (of Christ): this fits with the pattern established in the Old Testament, in which while Israel was the focus of much of the Prophecy, understanding the culmination of the Promises of God in the promised New Covenant established by Christ helps us to keep in mind that the promises were not exclusive to Israel. And we do see that it was the Jews that were first brought into the Church.
There is much that has to be looked at when discussing the differences between the views (idealist, preterist, historical, and futurist), but the primary issue dividing most of us is our view of Scripture itself. It does little good to discuss prophecy if one takes the view that some of it is analogous, and some of it literal.
To be clear, about my own position, I am a literalist and a futurist that takes into consideration that while figurative language and symbols are used, they always represent a truth that is being revealed about a specific issue. For example, just because Satan is described in terms such as dragon, and serpent, I do not dismiss the fact that Satan is said to exist as a personal being. The Antichrist is called a beast, but that does not mean we dismiss the fact that he is human.
Discussion concerning eschatological matters is one of my favorite topics, but discussions are much better between pre-millennialists, I believe, because I believe we are more inclined to consider unfulfilled prophecy to still have future fulfillment. That doesn't mean conversations I have had with the amillennial and preterist brethren I have met have all been bad, but, I am very much against spiritualization of any given text, and lean more toward an exegetical and expository approach to study.
And I hope none of this offends.
God bless.
