Posted on 04/12/2007 8:31:50 AM PDT by xzins
WHY I AM NOT A PRETERIST The word "preterist" is taken from the Latin word meaning "past." This view denies any future fulfillment of the book of Revelation and sees the events it describes as already having been fulfilled within the first century after Christ. There are several different forms of Preterism. Full Preterism views all of the prophecies of the Bible as having already been fulfilled in their entirety since the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Full Preterism is a very recent innovation that has no adherents in any of the writings of the early church. Partial Preterism maintains a future return of Christ, but views His "coming in the clouds" as described in Matthew 24:29-31 as having been fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the fall of Jerusalem. 1. Jesus and Preterism.
With regards to Preterism, I am reminded of the words of Jesus when He said to the disciples, "The days shall come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. And they will say to you, 'Look there! Look here!' Do not go away, and do not run after them. For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day." (Luke 17:22-24). It seems to me that the Preterist is one who is pointing to the A.D. 70 event and saying, "Look there! Look here!" But there is going to be no mistaking the coming of the Son of Man when He finally returns. By contrast, none of the believers of the early church viewed the 70 A.D. fall of Jerusalem as fulfilling the promise of the return of Christ. This brings us to our next point.
2. The Church Fathers and Preterism.
It is clear from a reading of the apostolic and church fathers that ALL of them expected a future return of Jesus Christ. It would be strange indeed if the entire church failed to understand the fulfillment of so many of the New Testament prophecies on such a major point. This is especially striking when we remember the promise of Revelation 1:7 that tells us, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. A preterist interpretation calls for this to be a reference to the "tribes of the land" of Israel, even though Israel was never described in such a way elsewhere in the Bible. But such an interpretation would demand that the Jews who suffered through the A.D. 70 event would have recognized that their sufferings were a punishment for their treatment of Jesus since the prophecy is not merely that they would mourn, but that they would mourn "over Him." Just as there is no evidence that anyone in the church ever recognized the fall of Jerusalem as the return of Jesus, so also there is a complete absence of evidence that the Jews ever recognized the coming of Jesus in those events.
3. The Resurrection and Preterism.
Fundamental to full Preterism is the idea that there is no future physical resurrection of the dead. But the pattern for our resurrection is that of Jesus. The big idea presented in 1 Corinthians 15 is that Jesus arose from the dead. This was not merely some sort of spiritual resurrection. The point is made throughout this chapter that His resurrection was bodily and physical. Furthermore we are told that His resurrection serves as the paradigm for our own resurrection. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep (1 Corinthians 15:20). He is the firstfruits and we are the "later fruits." When Paul came to Athens, he was mocked by the Greeks for believing in a physical resurrection. Such mockery would not have been forthcoming had he held that the resurrection was only going to be of a spiritual or mystical nature. But he went out of his way to side himself with the Pharisees who believed in a physical resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6-8). In denying any future resurrection at the coming of Christ, the preterist also finds himself out of accord with the words of Paul when he says, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51). The reference to sleep is used throughout this epistle as a euphemism for death (11:30; 15:6; 15:18; 15:20). While Paul says of the coming of the Lord that it will be a time when all do not die, the preterist is left with the rather obvious historic truth that everyone who lived in the first century did indeed die. When it comes to the resurrection, the Bible teaches that Jesus is our prototype. His resurrection is the forerunner and the pattern for our own resurrection. This point is made in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul says that if there is no resurrection then even Jesus has not risen. The resurrection of Jesus was a physical resurrection. He was able to stand before His disciples in His resurrection body and say, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:39). 1 John 3:2 says that when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is. Therefore we can conclude that our future resurrection will be of a physical AND spiritual nature.
4. Preterism and the Lord's Supper.
One wonders whether the Full Preterist is completely consistent in his views. After all, most Full Preterists continue to partake of the Lord's Supper in spite of the fact that Paul said that the eating and drinking serves to "proclaim the Lord's death UNTIL HE COMES" (1 Corinthians 11:26).
5. Preterism and the Promise of a Soon Coming.
Preterists like to point out that Jesus and the disciples stated that the kingdom was near and at hand. What they often ignore is that this same formula was used in the Old Testament in instances where the eventual fulfillment was a long way off. An example of this is seen in Isaiah 13:6 where, speaking of a coming judgment against the city of Babylon, the prophet says, "Wail, for the day of the LORD is near! It will come as destruction from the Almighty." Isaiah writes these words in the 8th century B.C. but it is not until 539 B.C. that Babylon fell to the Persians. The preterist attempts to make a similar case via the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:34 where Jesus says, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." What is conveniently ignored is the earlier context of Jesus' words in the previous chapter.
"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,
Notice that it was "this generation" that murdered Zechariah, the son of Berechiah." The problem is that this murder took place 400 years earlier as recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21. This tells us that Matthew's use of the term "generation" means something different than a mere life span of the people who were living at that time.
6. Preterism and the Angels at the Ascension.
Another problem facing the preterist is seen in the promise that was given to the disciples at the ascension of Jesus. The event took place on the Mount of Olives.
And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
The promise that was given by the angels is that Jesus would come again in exactly the same way as they had watched Him go into heaven. This had not been a spiritual ascension, but a physical and visible one. It is for this reason that Christians throughout the ages fully expect a future physical and visible return of Christ.
7. Preterism and the Judgment of the World.
When Paul preaches to the Athenians on the Areopagus, he declares to them that God has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed (Acts 17:31). The Preterist interpretation of this verse is that it points to the A.D. 70 fall of Jerusalem, yet that fall would have absolutely no impact upon the Athenians who had gathered to listen to Paul. He says that they ought to repent because of this coming judgment and such a warning is nonsensical if it only refers to a local judgment in a far away land.
There are some eschatological differences that exist between Christians that I consider to be relatively benign and within the realm of Christian orthodoxy. This is not one of them. To the contrary, the teaching of Preterism comes uncomfortably close to the spiritual gangrene that is described by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:18 when he speaks of those who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some. I have yet to meet a Preterist whose focus is upon church ministry or the spreading of the gospel or the building up of the church. To the contrary, those with whom I have thus far come into contact seem to have as their primary focus the spread of this particular teaching. I cannot help but to be reminded of the litmus test suggested by Jesus: You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?
I agree that is what he says. I strongly disagree with the truth of the statement.
The proof text of preterism is “this generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.”
I have yet to hear a credible explanation as to how the original audience of His comments would have understood this as meaning anything but what it clearly states: that those within that generation (roughly 40-year timeframe) would see those things He referenced fulfilled.
In that list of prophecies in Mt 24 is the prophecy of Jesus’ own return. It is among the “ALL of these things.”
That means any variety of preterist MUST believe that Jesus returned in that generation.
Do you?
In a fashion, yes. By no means do I believe He returned in the full consumation of His Kingdom in final judgement.
See, the problem here is that you choose to interpret time-frame references figuratively and descriptions of the parousia literally. Scripture much more strongly supports the opposite.
Regardless though, you seem bent on an oversimplification of the preterist view that makes it easy to slip in subtle implications about what we believe. I state clearly and unequivocally that as a partial preterist I believe in a future coming of Christ in the full consummation of His Kingdom and final judgement upon mankind.
Natch. He probably knows about as many preterists and their personal evangelistic habits as you do.
As a seasoned veteran of the PCA, I can tell you that I’m not very impressed when folks bring up that tired argument, whether it be used against preterism, postmillennialism, strict subscriptionism, theonomy, even good, old-fashion Southern Presbyterianism. The speaker is more-often-than-not clueless.
Yet, you just said you believe Jesus returned “in a fashion.”
I am certain that the proof text demands that Jesus have returned in that generation. If He did not return in that generation, then there is something wrong with the preterist interpretation of the proof text.
In what fashion do you think that Jesus returned?
At least you mentioned the Bible.
How you coming on Matt. 16:28?
The speaker has an extensive reformed, PCA background if you read his bio.
Is that the best you can offer in criticism of preterism? Somebody's experience?!?
Funny how you would go to such great lengths to defend a statement by the author that has NOTHING to do with the Scriptural and doctrinal issues at stake. Rather than focusing on the issue of preterism in light of Scripture, you're bent on defending this guy's unquestionable "experience" regarding the behavior of preterists (even though his experience is easily demonstrable as not being indicative of how many preterists actually behave).
Is this guilt-by-association argument really that important to you?
I've never heard one either - other than the utterly unsatisfactory "Matthew is for the Jews" argument. I remember asking some Plymouth Brethren dispensationalists (I grew up among them) why the ingathering of the elect was clearly after the tribulation, and I got that answer. I became amillennial after that answer.
How are you coming on giving a summary of what you believe about the 70AD “return” of Christ, as I’ve asked so many times now....and a list of those prophecies yet unfulfilled according to preterism?
So do partial preterists! :)
x:I agree. The bible demands it.
Partial preterists agree as well.
1. You're assuming that the guy posting that website isn't puffing his resume. That never happens.....
2. Frankly, eschatology in the Reformed denominations isn't that big an issue. One could go years at a time in a Reformed church and never hear a thing about eschatology. I know I haven't heard an eschatological sermon or Sunday School class in the 3 years I've been a Presbyterian.
And as has been repeatedly pointed out, partial preterists most certainly affirm the hope of the resurrection for the people of God. Yet there seems to be a persistent effort to imply that we don't.
Do you believe partial preterists rob people of the hope of the resurrection?
I am not sure what I would be labeled actually!
yeah, topcat...you should know by now that xzins is an expert at identifying something truly Reformed ;)
The author has made a series of points about preterism in his article. His concluding comments included a personal observation.
That concluding observations was something that was commented on by you to me in post #5. When you posted to me, did you want me NOT to respond? If you'd simply said so, then I probably would have obliged.
If you had wanted me to respond to you on one of points 1 through 7, then perhaps you might now want to point out one of those.
Resume’s can sometimes be easily checked on the internet.
See if there’s a guy of this name who is president of whatever college he says he president of.
No, Jude. xzins is an expert at determining whether somebody is truly Reformed or not, and he's convinced this guy is thoroughly Reformed...so much so that xzins is unwilling to question his experience. So if this guy says we preterists spend more time preaching our eschatology than preaching the Gospel then it must be true.
(whoa....got dizzy there for a second...)
Yup, and I gave my personal observation regarding the misleading nature of such a spurious comment. I questioned the unquestionable.
That concluding observations was something that was commented on by you to me in post #5. When you posted to me, did you want me NOT to respond? If you'd simply said so, then I probably would have obliged.
I honestly didn't think you would go to such great lenghts to defend a ridiculous statement like this one. You invited such criticism the moment you passed this guy off as some sort of proof that preterism is not truly Reformed.
But not on the return of Christ, which, partial preterists insist, had to be fulfilled as one of "ALL these things (that) must be fulfilled" in the "generation" living at that time in 70 AD.
I suspect you aren’t addressing any of the 7 points for a reason. Far easier to bloviate about his personal observation.
Read my lips, x, because I'm going to say this (again) as clearly and unequivocally as I can:
Partial preterists believe and teach a future as-yet-unrealized coming of Christ in the full and final consumation of His Kingdom and judgement of all mankind.
Now, are you going to accept what partial preterists tell you they themselves believe, or are you going to take it upon yourself to continue telling us we are lying and that we really believe something else?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.