Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by mandym, Oct 3, 2011.
The reformation brought us the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Bible alone. One area that the reformers didn’t address was eschatology. Instead they continued to restate and refine that which was wildly held for centuries forgetting that much of the other details of doctrines believed by the church were in error Biblically speaking.
As time moved on, a new emphasis on the Bible was placed, focusing on the eschatological teaching in a fresh light. Some found that conventional thinking was lacking and thus systematized the end time teaching of the Bible, same as in every other aspect of the Scriptures.
It is very difficult in my opinion to shout sola scriptura on the one hand and then to rely on the teaching of the reformers and ECFs to explain a theology that is not contained within the Scriptures. Preterism is an attempt to explain the precepts of the Bible in a way that keeps the historical thinking intact and doesn’t offend the 19th century protestant liberals. It accomplishes this by placing end time events on a higher mental plane. Those espousing preterism do so by aggressively overloading the debate with references that do not prove their point, rather they are designed to burden the opposing viewpoint with unnecessary and secondary considerations. This is what separates it (preterism) from conventional reformed theology.
No one reading the Bible as they would any other work of literature would come to the modern preterist conclusion. Covenant theology in general and Preterism in particular do not follow the same rules of interpretation for eschatology that are used for any other aspect of Biblical teaching. If they did, that is, spiritualizing the doctrines of Christ or the church for example; they would not be Christians in the Biblical sense.