Preterism & Biblical Prophecy

[Zinc]

Re: Was preterism taught in early Christianity?

Yes, early sources for full preterism do exist. I have posted this article before- I have handy from the website only right now- so pls excuse the typesetting error on it.
The Road Back to Preterism A Brief History of Eschatology and the Church

Looking at one example, it gives an Origen quote:

We do not deny, then, that the purificatory fire and the destruction of the world took place in order that evil might be swept away, and all things be renewed; for we assert that we have learned these things from the sacred books of the prophets…And anyone who likes may convict this statement of falsehood, if it be not the case that the whole Jewish nation was overthrown within one single generation after Jesus had undergone these sufferings at their hands. For forty and two years, I think after the date of the crucifixion of Jesus, did the destruction of Jerusalem take place.

This is taken from "Contra Celsus", Book 4:

Origen: Contra Celsus, Book 4 (Roberts-Donaldson)

And your source appears to be mixing two different things in a questionable way. (The material quoted is found close together in the Origen text, but not right next to each other.) It doesn't speak of preterism in the way defined above as far as I can see.

Anyway, your own source tells us:

None of the writers above were Preterists; one and all still looked for Christ to come a second time.

So "None of the writers above were Preterists" according to your own source.

Yet, their writings evidence definite Preterist strains and influences.

Preterists can point to certain things that they like in the church fathers, fair enough.

But dispensationalists could point to certain things in the church fathers which they would say is in agreement with their own viewpoint. Does that change the fact that it may indeed be a modern system?

 

[Zinc]

Re: Was preterism taught in early Christianity?

This is one my big issues with labels like this! If "preterist" is someone who believes all prophecy is past (fulfilled), you can't very well call Christ and His disciples "preterists!"

What is past to us was future for them. That would make them "futurists"! See how these kinds of labels only confuse the issue?

Not really.

Storm, Jesus & the apostles TAUGHT preterism. Their saying His return, the Judgment & Resurrection of the dead was IMMINENT in the 1st century- is- the basis (& proof) for Preterist eschatology.

It may be the "basis" for it, but I don't believe it's really a "proof".

 

[Zinc]

Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

Some people may find this article interesting. I will give a couple of quotes from it.

Whether or not one thinks preterism is really "gangrene", the question I would ask here is, do you agree that preterism "spreads" taking in more and more of the scripture?




Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

By Martyn McGeown

From the introduction

Preterism is the heresy which maintains that most or all of the eschatological events prophesied in Scripture have been fulfilled already in the past. Postmillennialists, who envisage a "Golden Age" for the Church in which the world is Christianised, consign the New Testament prophecies concerning the Great Tribulation and persecution of the Church, the fearful and widespread apostasy from the truth, and the rise of Antichrist to the past. These events were fulfilled, say the postmillennialists, in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Romans. Some are moderate, partial or inconsistent preterists. Full, extreme, consistent or hyper-preterists relegate not only those prophecies to the past, but they also teach that all New Testament prophecy, including the resurrection of the dead (which they, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, spiritualise), the final judgment and even the Second Advent of Jesus Christ occurred in A.D. 70. There is therefore no future coming of Christ at the end of the world. We are already in the new heavens and the new earth in which righteousness dwells (II Peter 3:13). This world will probably go on forever, or, if it does not last eternally, the Bible has nothing to tell us about the future.

...For now modern postmillennialists are resisting hyper-preterism but this paper will contend that eventually their system must collapse under its own inconsistency. It must succumb to the gangrene of the Philetian and Hymenaean heresy.




From the conclusion

We have demonstrated that Postmillennial Reconstructionists are preterists. Gentry classifies himself a preterist, albeit an "orthodox" one. The champions of postmillennial Reconstructionism all teach that Antichrist, the Great Tribulation and the Great Apostasy occurred in the past. Therefore the Church, unencumbered by any threat of a future Antichrist, a shrinking Church and widespread persecution, must be busy christianising the world and bringing about a carnal kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth. The gangrene of preterism begins there. Crucial eschatological chapters (Matthew 24, II Thessalonians 2 and most of the book of Revelation) are swallowed up in this way. We saw as well how key texts, which have traditionally been used to prove the Second Advent, no longer do so as preterism eats them like a canker. We have demonstrated the inconsistency of the preterist and argued how other texts may be "preterized" as the gangrene spreads inexorably up the limbs of Postmillennial Reconstructionism.

The question must be asked: given that most of the eschatological texts have been devoured by the preterist gangrene, what is there to stop the men of Postmillennial Reconstructionism from adopting full-blown preterism? We appreciate the fact that a future Second Advent still occupies a place in their theology, but after "preterizing" most of the New Testament, where will they find Biblical evidence to support this eschatology? Principles work through. How many generations will it take before the Reconstructionist movement, whose champion David Chilton happily informs us that the Second Advent is probably hundreds of thousands of years in the future; whose champion Gary North argues that the prayer "Come quickly, Lord Jesus" is inappropriate for today’s Christians; and whose champion Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., extols the book of hyper-preterist J. Stuart Russell as "masterfully written," will adopt full-blown preterism’s denial of a future Second Advent, a final judgment and a bodily resurrection of all men?

Let us beware of the preterist gangrene. It is spreading in reputedly Reformed churches. It is tolerated or even promoted by influential men. Reformed ministers must repudiate it and warn their people against it.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

I just want to know then for those who are Preterists why John, in 94AD or there abouts, talks about a temple in Revelation if he wrote the book after 70AD? Or again, what about Ezekiel's temple in the end chapters? Nothing like that (or that large) was ever constructed.

And then they say there's nothing in scripture that talks about another temple being built. Meanwhile smack-in-one's-face events such as Israel becoming a nation, the taking of Jerusalem and now talk about building another temple all occurred.

I can also talk about the throne of David as well, and how Jesus never took that earthly throne, in spite of it being promised to him, so when is he going to take it?

And so on and so forth.

I think the bible is bigger than observable history. If it is all completed now, and there's NOTHING after this, then that's a severely closed scope IMO.

 

[Drew]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

Preterism is the heresy which maintains that most or all of the eschatological events prophesied in Scripture have been fulfilled already in the past.

Heresy is in the eyes of the beholder. I suggest, for example, that much of the material in Matthew 24 entails prophecies about events that occurred shortly after Jesus' death.

If it makes me a heretic to take Jesus seriously when He asserts that the temple will be destroyed in a generation, I will gladly be called "heretic".

There is therefore no future coming of Christ at the end of the world.

Whatever label you may wish to apply to me, I certainly do believe that Jesus will indeed return in the future.

We are already in the new heavens and the new earth in which righteousness dwells (II Peter 3:13).

Well, we are in that world, at least in a sense. The scriptures are clear: the kingdom of God, here in this present world, was initiated 2000 years ago. It has not reached its full consummation, but the kingdom is indeed here.

This world will probably go on forever,...

It is entirely Biblical to assert that this present will never be destroyed. It will be redeemed and transformed, but not destroyed.

Therefore the Church, unencumbered by any threat of a future Antichrist, a shrinking Church and widespread persecution, must be busy christianising the world and bringing about a carnal kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth. The gangrene of preterism begins there.

This critique is not Biblically sustainable. We, the church have indeed been given the mandate to implement the kingdom of God here on earth.

It is unfortunate that this author uses demeaning and insulting rhetoric to try to support his position. Let's do the exegesis, talk about the relevant texts, and let scripture decide who is the heretic and who is not.

I want to be clear: I am not defending all stripes of preterism. But my study of Scripture has lead me to the conclusion that many of the prophecies that most see as lying in the future have indeed already been fulfilled.

 

[Drew]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

IAnd then they say there's nothing in scripture that talks about another temple being built. Meanwhile smack-in-one's-face events such as Israel becoming a nation, the taking of Jerusalem and now talk about building another temple all occurred.

You cannot simply presume that because Israel became a nation again in 1948, this event must be the subject of specific prophecies. How do you know that this was not an "act of men" that does not have the "blessing" of God?

 

[Stormcrow]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

Why would you rather talk about the strawman of preterism than the Bible?

 

[Drew]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

Your logic is simply not correct. Consider a prophecy P whose meaning is ambiguous - it could be a prophecy that A will occur, or it could be a prophecy that B will occur. Now if A actually occurs, this does not resolve the ambiguity- it is not evidence that the "correct" interpretation of P is that A will occur. Why? Precisely because the factors that caused A to occur may be factors other than prophetic fulfillment in line with God's will.

The fact that Israel was restored as a nation does not mean that earlier prophecies, which are not clear at all as to whether they refer to the re-constitution of the nation of Israel, have been fulfilled.

 

[Hitch]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

I just want to know then for those who are Preterists why John, in 94AD or there abouts,

Yawn ,, I wont even bother to ask for proof

talks about a temple in Revelation if he wrote the book after 70AD? Or again, what about Ezekiel's temple in the end chapters? Nothing like that (or that large) was ever constructed.

And then they say there's nothing in scripture that talks about another temple being built. Meanwhile smack-in-one's-face events such as Israel becoming a nation, the taking of Jerusalem and now talk about building another temple all occurred.

I can also talk about the throne of David as well, and how Jesus never took that earthly throne, in spite of it being promised to him, so when is he going to take it?

And so on and so forth.

I think the bible is bigger than observable history. If it is all completed now, and there's NOTHING after this, then that's a severely closed scope IMO.

 

[Hitch]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

I dont know but I've heard preterists eat brocolli

 

[theLords]

Three more threads have been merged into this one. Please keep discussion on Preterism and End Times Biblical Prophecy in this thread. Thank you.

 

[Zinc]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

that much of the material in Matthew 24 entails prophecies about events that occurred shortly after Jesus' death.

I did ask you what you thought of Matthew 24:30-31? Is that 2nd Coming or not do you think?

If it makes me a heretic to take Jesus seriously when He asserts that the temple will be destroyed in a generation, I will gladly be called "heretic".

You seem to be a partial preterist? Don't worry, it's the full preterists that mostly get the accusation of "heresy".

It is entirely Biblical to assert that this present will never be destroyed. It will be redeemed and transformed, but not destroyed.

That's a controversial claim I think. Although I don't dispute that the Bible teaches a "transformed creation".

It is unfortunate that this author uses demeaning and insulting rhetoric to try to support his position.

If you don't like accusations of "heresy" tied up with some strong-ish rhetoric, then you're probably in the wrong religion! I mean, even Jesus could use some strong language could he not? If you challenged the author on this, I'm guessing he might appeal to the Biblical example.

Anyway, looking at the article, it doesn't actually seem like very "nasty" writing to me. Maybe this comes down to taste, but for me, and I have just skimmed it again, I didn't see anything that really crossed the line. It just looks like strong-ish rhetoric, or I could even maybe call it "moderate" rhetoric, that the author uses to attack a theological position that he is against.

I don't think it was intended to insult anyone. To speak of someone "dangerously benumbed by preterist gangrene" is potentially offensive, but I don't think we are talking personal insult here. Just sincere attack on a theological position.

Let's do the exegesis, talk about the relevant texts, and let scripture decide who is the heretic and who is not.

Sure we should look at the Bible. But let's be honest, if your teaching has been invented in modern times, it doesn't look that good. It looks like quite possibly you are reinterpreting the texts.

I want to be clear: I am not defending all stripes of preterism.

You haven't yet commented on the OP question:

"Whether or not one thinks preterism is really "gangrene", the question I would ask here is, do you agree that preterism "spreads" taking in more and more of the scripture?"

I'm guessing that you would disagree with that. But it would be good to get your comment on it.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

Your logic is simply not correct. Consider a prophecy P whose meaning is ambiguous - it could be a prophecy that A will occur, or it could be a prophecy that B will occur. Now if A actually occurs, this does not resolve the ambiguity- it is not evidence that the "correct" interpretation of P is that A will occur. Why? Precisely because the factors that caused A to occur may be factors other than prophetic fulfillment in line with God's will.

The fact that Israel was restored as a nation does not mean that earlier prophecies, which are not clear at all as to whether they refer to the re-constitution of the nation of Israel, have been fulfilled.

Please do not insult others when the error is yours.

You tell me how incorrect my logic is, but it is simply based on noting events are occurring according to prophecy. What would it take for it to be fulfilled to you? You are muddling up the water claiming something about ambiguity. Well, maybe to you but not to me. So don't project your uncertainties regarding prophecy as a position of my logic as that is equally illogical.

And speaking of ambiguity, what about the temples in Revelation and Ezekiel? Not ambiguous to me.

 

[Lehigh3]

If you don't want to talk then that is your choice.

Just one thing however... maybe an "orthodox" Christian could take a similar attitude with you yourself? That you have no business commenting on Christian eschatology because you are outside of the historic faith with your "heresy"??

Just saying. Maybe you shouldn't qualify to comment yourself...

I agree with Hitch- heresy is where you find it.

Does it upset you that I am a Christian yet I am academic enough to analyze the uninspired so called church fathers who thought they made "orthodoxy" with eschatology? Who created eschatological "orthodoxy" & the future implications of Christ's return in the creeds?

Why are dispensationalists so upset that the church fathers missed the nature of Christ's second coming?

If you think Christ will return (a 3rd time) then tell me, for what reason- & where in the Text He says he is going to do whatever it is you think He is going to do specifically.
Show me.

 

[reba]

5 - Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

7 - Any personal problems with another member, then deal with it through private messages.

I know it is hard to not get emotional about these topics. This is the last warning i will start deleting posts with the next one that comes close to being over the line.

EDITTED:

After a second scan the deleting starts now. When posters bring in personal battles and the MODS have step in some of the posts are not going to read like you would like them too.

Think of the TOS before you post.

 

[Sinthesis]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

I dont know but I've heard preterists eat brocolli

Ate Broccoli! past tense

 

[Zinc]

If you think Christ will return (a 3rd time) then tell me...

I don't know where you are getting that idea from.

 

[Drew]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

I did ask you what you thought of Matthew 24:30-31? Is that 2nd Coming or not do you think?

I believe that text was fulfilled in the events of the first century. But I want to be absolutely clear: this does not mean that I do not believe that will come again in the future.

If you don't like accusations of "heresy" tied up with some strong-ish rhetoric, then you're probably in the wrong religion! I mean, even Jesus could use some strong language could he not? If you challenged the author on this, I'm guessing he might appeal to the Biblical example.

The difference is that Jesus has the "moral authority" to make such claims. The problem is that many, not all mind you, but many who use nasty rhetoric are actually in the wrong when it comes to the subject matter at issue. There is an all too common trend in Biblical "discussion": try to carry the point through the use of nasty rhetoric. Surely we can do better, don't you think?

 

[Drew]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

Sure we should look at the Bible. But let's be honest, if your teaching has been invented in modern times, it doesn't look that good. It looks like quite possibly you are reinterpreting the texts.

There is some value in this line of reasoning, but we need to be careful.

Do you believe in a rapture? That is strictly a modern idea, having only come into existence in the last 200 years. I believe that Bible does not teach that there will be a rapture in the sense of an event where people are taken away from the earth.

In any event, I believe that it is fundamentally the strength of the exegesis that matters, not the "tradition". And I am prepared to defend in some detail the position that Matthew 24 is substantially about the first century.

You haven't yet commented on the OP question:

"Whether or not one thinks preterism is really "gangrene", the question I would ask here is, do you agree that preterism "spreads" taking in more and more of the scripture?"

I'm guessing that you would disagree with that. But it would be good to get your comment on it.

I would not disagree with the assertion that "preterism "spreads" taking in more and more of the scripture". But that is not surprising if elements of the preterist position are, in fact, correct. We should not be surprised that scripture displays an internal unity and coherence.

 

[Drew]

Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

You are muddling up the water claiming something about ambiguity.

The problem is that you have provided no evidence for a clear prophetic assertion that the nation of Israel will, in fact, be "re-formed". When you have made that case, then your position will indeed be quite strong.

And speaking of ambiguity, what about the temples in Revelation and Ezekiel? Not ambiguous to me.

It would be very odd indeed if there would ever be a new temple. The reason: this would clash theologically with the clear theme of "Jesus and then the church" as the dwelling place for the Spirit of God". It would make no sense at all to build another temple since the very role of the temple - to "house" the Spirit" - has been rendered irrelevant precisely because the Spirit now lives in the Church.

But, in any event, please identify the relevant texts from Ezekiel and Revelation and I will have a look.