The Pros & Cons of Preterism

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

As the OP, do you have a list of pros and cons?

Truly, there should be no pros for any child of God to embrace error.

Error has not only been embraced, but corporate christianity has championed it for the better part of 1700 years. I think a wise man once said that broad is the way that leads to desttuction and narrow is the gate that leads to life and few there be that find it, or something like that....... but I say all that just to make the point that the majority and most popular view is not necessarily the correct one.

Back to answering your questions. I'll start with the pros that immediately come to mind.

1. It views the Bible writings in the proper historical context rather than placing everything in the light of contemporary point of view.

2. It leaves not gaping spaces (2000 years) between the 'weeks' of Daniel's 70 week prophecy.

3. It take Jesus at his word and it does not make the inspired writers of scripture seem ignorant and misled in their thinking that Jesus' return would be soon and even imminent.

Here are some cons I have found.

1. Some preterists claim that since the AD 70 advent of Jesus that we have been living on the "new" Earth under the "new" Heavens.

2. It often depicts many of the prophecies as only having a "spiritual" fulfillment as opposed to a real literal and physical fulfillment.

3. It still views the church(es) as a continuation of what Jesus established in the 1st century.

 

[Alabaster]

Error has not only been embraced, but corporate christianity has championed it for the better part of 1700 years. I think a wise man once said that broad is the way that leads to desttuction and narrow is the gate that leads to life and few there be that find it, or something like that....... but I say all that just to make the point that the majority and most popular view is not necessarily the correct one.

Back to answering your questions. I'll start with the pros that immediately come to mind.

1. It views the Bible writings in the proper historical context rather than placing everything in the light of contemporary point of view.

2. It leaves not gaping spaces (2000 years) between the 'weeks' of Daniel's 70 week prophecy.

3. It take Jesus at his word and it does not make the inspired writers of scripture seem ignorant and misled in their thinking that Jesus' return would be soon and even imminent.

Here are some cons I have found.

1. Some preterists claim that since the AD 70 advent of Jesus that we have been living on the "new" Earth under the "new" Heavens.

2. It often depicts many of the prophecies as only having a "spiritual" fulfillment as opposed to a real literal and physical fulfillment.

3. It still views the church(es) as a continuation of what Jesus established in the 1st century.

That's not enough for me. Thanks anyway.

God urges us to not lean on our own understanding.

 

[Hitch]

That's funny , I just checked out "the Resurrection message" on a TV station. All was good until I heard the end of it- & I don't call him a "liar" I say he was actually preaching false hope & misplaced hope.

I would call him a liar if he wrote this ;Lehigh3
That is not entirely true. That would be based on the CREEDS & would be detrimental to Christianity about the bodily return of Jesus Christ.

I took a couple of notes to examine, being the Berean that I am. He spoke about Christ's resurrected body & how THAT was suitable for His 40 days on earth. Ok so far. Then he spoke about Ephesians 1:11-14, ok we were predestined, even though John the apostle spoke of disciples that had turned away from the faith- but John said they really weren't "of us" to begin with- but that didn't bother me- the preacher was still on message.
Then he continued with Eph.1:13- good. We were sealed with the Holy Spirit when we received Jesus as Lord & Savior, "we were sealed with a promise of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession..." ok, this is an all times statement by me- but he used it only in a futuristic sense.

Then he went to Romans 8:18-23- regarding the creation groaning - he left out Paul's words of "until now" I noticed..... ok, he also continued & said "we" (as if meaning we today) who have the firstfruits of the spirit. Stop right there for that one. We definitely are not the ones to receive the firstfruits of the Spirit. James makes that clearer- & much more evidence in scripture refutes actually, that statement.
But the part that cannot be denied is where he said Jesus would come back & this earth will be a glorious new creation.
That causes misplaced hope, imho. The same Paul also said in 2Cor.5:17 (the whole chapter actually) that, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold; all things have become new. (NKJV)

So to me, we have the whole erroneous notion that Christ will come & this world as we know it will become like the garden of Eden literally.

Why couldn't he just have said that we will all individually be welcomed by Jesus in heaven with a glorious body that God will give us, who are promised such an inheritance?

And for hope sake, simply say what Paul said in 1Cor.2:9? NKJV,
9 But as it is written:


“ Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.â€[a]

Do I call that preacher a "liar?" [And I know of plenty Bible scholars with the title "DR." before their names too] No. I wouldn't even call the tv station or write to him my thoughts if they were so stated.

But it is a point worth pondering......& not for me!

"And the Spirit and the Bride say come!" (Rev.22:17)

I dont argue eschatology outside the church

 

[Lehigh3]

Not exactly sure what you are saying there Hitch- but calling another Christian himself a "liar" is just too hateful a word for me to use. I mean, don't all "liars" get tossed into the lake of fire? (Rev.21:8;21:27) No matter what one believes that is- it's for sure it's very negative & hateful (like a devil's work!) to say to a believer &/ or a man of God.
I would forgive 7 times 70 :p before I would say that directly. There's a reason or 2 or more that he would have such an interpretation of Scripture, & I can understand that much without being hateful bc I don't agree.:D

 

[Alabaster]

Whether one is personally a liar or not, there can be eternal ramifications for:

a) believing certain lies
b) promoting certain lies

 

[Lehigh3]

Whether one is personally a liar or not, there can be eternal ramifications for:

a) believing certain lies
b) promoting certain lies

I disagree :waving

 

[Lehigh3]

by alabaster,

God urges us to not lean on our own understanding.

That is what Solomon taught in Pr.3:5 to the youth. However, without understanding (from God or anywhere) we are foolish according to Solomon also:
Pr.8:5. And see Pr.23:23, just to add at least one more!

 

[Alabaster]

by alabaster,


That is what Solomon taught in Pr.3:5 to the youth. However, without understanding (from God or anywhere) we are foolish according to Solomon also:
Pr.8:5. And see Pr.23:23, just to add at least one more!

The understanding of the Holy Spirit in us teaches us immediately that Preterism is to be discounted. The sad thing is that many believers don't pay Him any heed. What seems logical to their minds is more acceptable than the voice of the Holy Spirit, who says to get the message of hope and life about Jesus Christ out to the whole world because Jesus is coming soon, and do NOT listen to those who cry He has already come.

Imagine that! In the preterist's favourite Bible passage, there's a warning about them:

Matthew 24:23 NLT
“Then if anyone tells you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah,’ or ‘There he is,’ don’t believe it.

Thank you, Lord!


Revelation 1:7 NLT
Look! He comes with the clouds of heaven.
And everyone will see him—
even those who pierced him.
And all the nations of the world
will mourn for him.
Yes! Amen!

I don't 'see' Him! He ain't here, folks!

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Promoting lies brings eternal consequences. There is no lie in Heaven.

What leads to you to believe that the tenets of preterism are the lie as opposed to the tenets of premillennialism, amillennialism, or postmillennialism?

What seems most clear from God's word is that the lie is that there is a gap between the 69th and 70th week Daniel spoke of. The idea that such a gap exists is nowhere supported in scripture.

 

[Alabaster]

What leads to you to believe that the tenets of preterism are the lie as opposed to the tenets of premillennialism, amillennialism, or postmillennialism?

What seems most clear from God's word is that the lie is that there is a gap between the 69th and 70th week Daniel spoke of. The idea that such a gap exists is nowhere supported in scripture.

The biggest clue is that Jesus isn't here, is He? We are not in the Millennium, as it is now 2000 years since He ascended.

Sin is rampant. Satan is still active...he is not bound.

Preterism sees ya coming and rolls out its red carpet. No thanks.

 

[jasoncran]

i take a shot @ alabaster.

would you listen to a prophet or pastor that was a womaniser, recieved bribes, and also divorced several times?

this man that you wouldnt listen is commonly the person credited with the pre-trib doctrine. that doenst mean that that theory is wrong but I THINK given that info one would double check the doctrine. i have at present that is why i went to mid-trib and i am not dogmatic. i do think full preterism is a heresy. however i cant say that partial preterism isnt unconcvialbe. the problem with the seven yr trib is that the literal interpration of the verses where its say these are they died without the mark of the beast and having been beheaded in the great tribulation. the bible also says only they reign! i have taken a less literal approach to that and included all that died and have served faithfully to the lord.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

The understanding of the Holy Spirit in us teaches us immediately that Preterism is to be discounted. The sad thing is that many believers don't pay Him any heed. What seems logical to their minds is most acceptable than the voice of the Holy Spirit, who says to get the message of hope and life about Jesus Christ out to the whole world because Jesus is coming soon, and do NOT listen to those who cry He has already come.

Imagine that! In the preterist's favourite Bible passage, there's a warning about them:

Matthew 24:23 NLT
“Then if anyone tells you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah,’ or ‘There he is,’ don’t believe it.

Thank you, Lord!


Revelation 1:7 NLT
Look! He comes with the clouds of heaven.
And everyone will see him—
even those who pierced him.
And all the nations of the world
will mourn for him.
Yes! Amen!

I don't 'see' Him! He ain't here, folks!

If you are hearing the voice of an unseen force telling you that the words of Jesus, his apostles, and the Holy Spirit inspired writers of scripture who expressly said that the last days were some 2000 years ago, that that generation would have the 'guilt of the age' placed on them, and that Jesus' parousia was to be within the lifetime of those to whom he spoke while on Earth, then you had better tune in to a different spirit because no spirit sent from the God of Heaven will tell you things contrary to His revealed word.

As far as Jesus not being here now, that lacks relavance. We live over 1900 years after the events spoken of so there is no reason Jesus should be HERE on EARTH NOW. Jesus came within the generation HE SAID he would come and he did what he said he would do (come in power and in judgment as well as gather his elect). That coming had nothing to do with anyone living beyond that time. Jesus is reigning NOW on the throne at the right hand of the FATHER, but the Earth is not YET a part of that kingdom reign with Jesus and his saints. We still await the redemption of this world into the new land under a new sky spoken of in scripture, but that still doesn't change the fact that Jesus kept his word and returned nearly 2000 years ago.

 

[Alabaster]

i take a shot @ alabaster.

would you listen to a prophet or pastor that was a womaniser, recieved bribes, and also divorced several times?

this man that you wouldnt listen is commonly the person credited with the pre-trib doctrine. that doenst mean that that theory is wrong but I THINK given that info one would double check the doctrine.

That's foolishness, jason. I don't consider the teacher, as my teacher is Jesus.

i have at present that is why i went to mid-trib and i am not dogmatic.

Nothing wrong with that, except the reason why. It's like rejecting Jesus because you don't like Christians.

i do think full preterism is a heresy. however i cant say that partial preterism isnt unconcvialbe. the problem with the seven yr trib is that the literal interpration of the verses where its say these are they died without the mark of the beast and having been beheaded in the great tribulation. the bible also says only they reign! i have taken a less literal approach to that and included all that died and have served faithfully to the lord.

You are right. It is a heresy.

 

[Alabaster]

If you are hearing the voice of an unseen force telling you that the words of Jesus, his apostles, and the Holy Spirit inspired writers of scripture who expressly said that the last days were some 2000 years ago, that that generation would have the 'guilt of the age' placed on them, and that Jesus' parousia was to be within the lifetime of those to whom he spoke while on Earth, then you had better tune in to a different spirit because no spirit sent from the God of Heaven will tell you things contrary to His revealed word.

Holy Spirit ASSURES me that Jesus NEVER said He would return in their lifetime. The problem preterists have is poor interpretive skills, which many of us could easily possess, but an intimate walk with Jesus Christ protects us from believing such false, man-made doctrine.

I am grateful to God for His preservation.

 

[jasoncran]

That's foolishness, jason. I don't consider the teacher, as my teacher is Jesus.



Nothing wrong with that, except the reason why. It's like rejecting Jesus because you don't like Christians.



You are right. It is a heresy.

you do realise that the entire idea of the seven yr tribulation and the modern day rapture doctrine didnt exist till after these men? darby and also schofield.

schofield is a such a contraversial figure that if paul met him he would called him a wolf most likely. i have tried to find an unconversial commentator that believed in the pre-trib idea, none found so far.

so when you read the bible and i do and say the same how can the interpretations be so different? do you see that sometimes you or i have a bias to like on doctrine over the other?keep in mind that unlike many here i neither believed in prophetic isreal, nor the idea any christians that wasnt in the 144k going to heaven. no pastor showed me that totally. i read it for myself. when i hear the pre-trib beliefs its one verse here or there. to me its non-salvanic but one should take in the points of the others that dont see it that way and why.

if one cant defend any doctrine perhaps because its either not a sound doctrine or you havent grasped it. i believe that one should have a good idea of a doctrine and where to go to find it and have a reasonable defense with the idea of a pre-trib i can no longer do that.i may be wrong but, i dont see any historical context of God removing his saints from the wrath of man or satan. in fact he let them die from man or satan most of the time or suffer.

 

[warhorse]

i take a shot @ alabaster.

would you listen to a prophet or pastor that was a womaniser, recieved bribes, and also divorced several times?

this man that you wouldnt listen is commonly the person credited with the pre-trib doctrine. that doenst mean that that theory is wrong but I THINK given that info one would double check the doctrine. i have at present that is why i went to mid-trib and i am not dogmatic. i do think full preterism is a heresy. however i cant say that partial preterism isnt unconcvialbe. the problem with the seven yr trib is that the literal interpration of the verses where its say these are they died without the mark of the beast and having been beheaded in the great tribulation. the bible also says only they reign! i have taken a less literal approach to that and included all that died and have served faithfully to the lord.

YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK

 

[Alabaster]

you do realise that the entire idea of the seven yr tribulation and the modern day rapture doctrine didnt exist till after these men? darby and also schofield.

schofield is a such a contraversial figure that if paul met him he would called him a wolf most likely. i have tried to find an unconversial commentator that believed in the pre-trib idea, none found so far.

You are mistaken.

so when you read the bible and i do and say the same how can the interpretations be so different? do you see that sometimes you or i have a bias to like on doctrine over the other?keep in mind that unlike many here i neither believed in prophetic isreal, nor the idea any christians that wasnt in the 144k going to heaven. no pastor showed me that totally. i read it for myself. when i hear the pre-trib beliefs its one verse here or there. to me its non-salvanic but one should take in the points of the others that dont see it that way and why.

Yes, it is not salvific, but Preterism's beliefs interrupt the unfolding plan of God so precipitously, that the message of redemption, and overcoming and victory in Christ is pretty much overlooked.

if one cant defend any doctrine perhaps because its either not a sound doctrine or you havent grasped it. i believe that one should have a good idea of a doctrine and where to go to find it and have a reasonable defense with the idea of a pre-trib i can no longer do that.i may be wrong but, i dont see any historical context of God removing his saints from the wrath of man or satan. in fact he let them die from man or satan most of the time or suffer.

That makes no sense to me. There is one appointed time for the Bridegroom to go get His Bride (living and dead saints). Either you believe it or you don't.

 

[warhorse]

You are mistaken.




Yes, it is not salvific, but Preterism's beliefs interrupt the unfolding plan of God so precipitously, that the message of redemption, and overcoming and victory in Christ is pretty much overlooked.



That makes no sense to me. There is one appointed time for the Bridegroom to go get His Bride (living and dead saints). Either you believe it or you don't.

ALABASTER it is the pre-trib position that believes in two more returnes.

 

[Sam21]

The bible is written in such a way that it would appear that Jesus would have returned before the end of the first century, the bible does not take into account a 1900 year gap. Some folks are claiming that all the prophecies in the bible took place in the first century, although some of the prophecies did in fact take place in the first century, yet many have not, certainly Christ has not returned in the sky and gathered the church and repaid evil and set up His kingdom on earth.

 

[warhorse]

The bible is written in such a way that it would appear that Jesus would have returned before the end of the first century, the bible does not take into account a 1900 year gap. Some folks are claiming that all the prophecies in the bible took place in the first century, although some of the prophecies did in fact take place in the first century, yet many have not, certainly Christ has not returned in the sky and gathered the church and repaid evil and set up His kingdom on earth.

AGREED the scripture can be confusing sometimes. Jesus clearly said that his return would be after the times of the gentiles, and the (this generation shall not pass) statement is given in context with the fig tree parable. So there is no biblicy bound time frame for his return. It didnt have to happen in that generation, and there is no indication that it has. Danials 70th week is complete. but that was focused on danials peaple, national israel but not the church, note it was bookended with the construction and destruction of the jewish temple.