Featured How could anyone believe in Preterism?

That is a good question, Reformed. I have thought about that a lot. Yet I still would have to call myself a full preterist. But I am not quite "full" in the sense that I believe there are a very few things that have not yet happened, like the things spken of by the "seven thunders", that John was told not to write. And, on a personal level, each one of still will come to meet God after we die.

There are some Preterists, unfortunately, who believe that the whole idea of eternal consequences of faith or disbelief are already outdated. I am not one of those.

But I definitely cannot call myself partial preterist, seeing that I do not believe Scripture teaches a future coming of Christ.

 

Good to see you again, Hank.

Concerning those points raised, I believe they have all been addressed in the archives. I am too busy right now to hunt them up; I am staying here with family in Kansas. I forgot how nice it was to be out on the back porch. Two types of owls, as I type, are making themselves at home in the giant mulberry tree in the backyard.

If any one point of disagreement seems most important, Hank or anyone else, perhaps we can make a new thread of it. I will do my best to give a reasonable reply.

I have always remembered good discussions with you, Hank. You have always done well in the cordiality department, even though you strongly disagreed several times.

 

Tom, since you do not believe in a personal visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ, I would agree that you are a full Preterist.

My objection to Preterism is two-fold. 1. It questions the perspicuity of eschatology throughout the ages 2. It is a teaching that is on ever shifting ground. By that I mean that there is no clear consensus on Preterist doctrine. That Preterism has been considered heretical throughout most of church history does not make it so, but it certainly places it on the fringe of Christian eschatology. That is a dangerous place to be.

 

Agreed.And that is why I am most comfortable with that term.

And likewise I believe that any view that counters the core tenets of preterism, de facto, does damage to a proper Christology.

True enough. But what isn't on shifting ground? Dispensationalism, Reformed Theology - Christiandom itself
are also on ever shifting ground. We can both, I'm sure, think of dispensationalists, say, or Reformed people who are disgrace to their "ism". David Koresh and Rev. Moon, for instance were dispensationalists. So was Hitler. (They just had different charts)

Yet, their gathering under the dispy banner does not, in itself, discredit the belief. Neither is Preterism - a wide array of belief - discredited by those label themselves as such.

Protestantism has been considered heretical for centuries.

I would not say that Preterism is on the fringe of Christian eschatology per se, but that it takes and shifts much of what is called "eschatology" back into Christology, theology proper, and robust "Kingdomology".

 

Maybe because it would spoil the fun of pretend scholarly, and/or those who hold the opposite view are not considered brothers in Christ ?

 

It is interesting that you bring christology into discussion. I quite agree that eschatology and christology are inexorably linked. How one views the doctrine of Christ effects their view of the last days and vice versa.

There are differences of opinion in many church doctrines, but those doctrines that are within the bounds of orthodoxy have a foundational structure that have withstood these differences. Personally I disagree with Dispensationalism and do not consider it within the bounds of historic orthodoxy. It did not exist until the mid-19th century. However, because it has achieved critical mass in broad evangelicalism, it cannot be ignored.

Koresh and Moon? They are not examples of doctrinal extremes because they weren't even Christians.

If it was just a matter of diverse opinions within a movement I would grant that to you. But Preterism has never had one cohesive thought that the Church has recognized. The other major eschatological views all see a visible return of Christ. Preterism is on its own in rejecting that.

And by whom? The papists and other enemies of Christ? Like it or not, New Testament churches today owe their existence to the Protestant Reformation. Preterism can't be considered in the same league as Protestantism.

You would not say it because you hold to it. And your attempt at legitimatizing Preterism flies in the face of 2000 years of orthodoxy that has rejected it.

 

Actually there is only one passage of Scripture that possibly supports the premillennial doctrine and then only if interpreted incorrectly. There are none that support the so-called "pre trib" "snatching away" of the Church.

You might learn from Steve Gregg's Revelation, Four Views.

I would not call Full Preterism a heresy any more than I would call the "Parenthesis Church" of Classic Dispensationalism a heresy, though I believe both are incorrect understanding of Scripture. I do believe that the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was fulfillment of prophecy from Matthew 24 and was God's judgment upon the Jews. That "almost" makes me a partial preterist "but I do not believe" the Judgment of 70 AD was accompanied by a visible return of Jesus Christ or a resurrection of the dead!

 

Interesting thread all, I never heard about Preterism until Hank Hanagraff started bringing it up several years ago on his radio broadcast. I used to think he was crazy for his newly found beliefs. I have never really studied the topic at length but I do admit Hank would bring up good scriptural arguments that seemed to back up the preterist view.

Here's my short take on it all. Is perspicuity of scripture a doctrine we must hold to for orthodoxy? If not then is it possible that God has blinded us all to the end times for a good reason. It truly does seem that Christians are more divided on this subject than any other and maybe it is because the end will come like a thief in the night when we are all distracted on this BB....:love2:

 

Your sentence is unclear, friend. Could you please rephrase? Thanks.

 

In other words, it's the biblical version of a conspiracy theory.

 

OK, I am tired of rehashing these old pathways. Check the archives if you want. Many of these have been addressed before. I've tried being polite. Why don't we just agree to disagree.

 

You're the one who responded to my first post. That was your choice. And if it's a matter of checking the archives, you can say that about any topic. Why even have a Baptist Board if that's the case?

As for me I will point out error when I encounter it. Respectfully, but point it out nonetheless.

 

http://www.oldpathspaved.org/?p=156

The above link is part 1 of a two part series by Pastor Jerrold Lewis on the clarity, or perpiscuity, of scripture. It is a good read.

 

Speaking of errors, this is why I responded to you: You mischaracterized what Preterists believe. I was trying to correct your misunderstanding of what we believe.

But I guess you want to hold on to your misunderstanding of what Preterists believe. Well, that's up to you. You apparently know my beliefs better than I do [irony alert].

But don't labor under the impression that you are correcting error when you encounter it. You are perpetuating it.

 

To deny the Second Coming of jesus, and the physical ressurection of the saints both alive/dead in Him, is in fact heresy!

 

Chapter and verse, please, saying that
1. denying a future return of Christ is heresy and
2. a physical resurrection of saints is heresy.

 

The Apostles Creed is considered to be the earliest confession of believers' beliefs:

Common Worship[28]

According to it, the denial the coming of Christ, would be a heresy.

 

I am sorry that you have such a low view of Scripture that you would write this. The "earliest confession of believers' beliefs"?

Aside from being a misnomer - no apostle from the Bible ever wrote or spoke those words on that creed that came years later - there remains the fact that that creed is just the words of man. It is not the Word of God.

So, I am not concerned if some creed or council anathematizes my beliefs. I would be concerned if the Bible did.

Care to try again?

 

So you don't believe the apostles expected Christ to return, and wrote of that return in the prophetic works?

I ask, because the Apostles' Creed does nothing but summarize the inspired writings in the Bible. It itself is not inspired, but it shares the truth of Scripture. Would you not agree?

 

Sure.
The Second Coming of Christ is a historic orthodox teaching, believed throughout history by both Protestants and Catholics alike (just like the trinity). It is very easy to provide scripture for you, but you know that already. You would reinterpret it, and then dismiss it.
Thus the fact that it is both orthodox and historic has great value.

The same argument is used with the Charismatics. They also think that their doctrine is from the time of the apostles, but in reality it started at the beginning of the 20th century in 1905. Thus we use history at times to show how wrong people can be.
In your case the antiquity of the Apostles Creed shows you how wrong you are. I quoted from a "common creed," not the Catholic creed, which says almost the same thing. They were accepted from a very early age.