Parchment and Pen » Why I Don't Teach Preterism

Why I Don't Teach Preterism

It looks like I am getting some flack from some passionate Preterists (full or hyper Preterist, not partial preterists) who say I don’t give them a fair shake in The Theology Program material. Saying that I don’t give people a fair shake disturbs me very much as our program prides itself all being “fair and balanced.”

But the truth is that I don’t give Preterism a fair shake in The Theology Program. In fact, I don’t give them a shake at all.

Why? Good question.

Preterism is a funny thing. It is something that causes quite a bit of passionate adherence, the degree to which shows great imbalance. The reason why we don’t cover it in TTP is because it is neither significant historically or contemporary. I know that this might seem like an arrogant statement to those who hold this position, but I feel I am qualified enough to make this assertion in good conscience.

Full- or hyper-preterism is the belief, in essence that Christ has already come, we are in the New Heaven and New Earth, and the resurrection has already happened. It is not taken seriously (at least full-preterism) in any academic circles. There are only outspoken fringe groups who would claim the doctrine. It would be somewhat of a waste of our time to cover it in The Theology Program (and we don’t have a lot of time).

Really, it is not unlike the KJV Only movement. A lot of passionate followers who believe that they are right. But, in the end, it is found wanting to such a strong degree that no one wants to waste their time with it. As interesting as it is, we don’t cover the KJV Only doctrine in The Theology Program either.

I am sitting at my hotel in the lobby in Rhode Island. I am attending the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). ETS is society of great diversity and incredible scholarship. I think we have somewhere around 1500 scholars here. Wallace, Bock, Mounce (sitting right beside me right now), Blaising, Enns, Grudem, Moo (although I have not seen him), Copan, Bowman, Craig, Piper, Moreland, and many many others. In the convention area where we all hang out and buy books, there is a booth that a Preterist organization sets up each and every year. They are a very small group and they attempt to flag people down in efforts to proselytize the scholars. In truth, everyone walks past this booth with a little spice to their step and their hand slightly covering their face so as to avoid a conversation that will simply be an exercise in futility (a sinful waste of time). Could the entire world of Christian scholarship be wrong about this issue? Could the entire history of the church be wrong? Possible, but we could also be wrong about the KJV Only movement. Maybe the KJV is inspired.

We have to act with integrity about what we give our time to study. Hyper-preterism is simply not something that deserves the time. (BTW: I think that everyone would do the same if the flat earth society set up a booth).

In the end, I have a responsibility to teach what is either biblically viable, historically significant, or contemporarily relevant. I don’t mean to offend anyone with this but full-preterism does not meet any of the criteria at this point in time. Maybe if it is ever taken more seriously we will include it in our program.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a blog that is arguing the exegetical merits or demerits of preterism. Please don’t take it down that road. It is not my intention any more than it is my intention to invite KJV Only advocates to present their view. I don’t want to give such a doctrine a platform at this time (if I do, then I may be having to present it in TTP someday!).

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

No Responses to “Why I Don't Teach Preterism”

Jason on 21 Nov 2008 at 12:54 am #

Although I think partial preterism has some good points, I have to agree that a hyper preterist view that we live in the new earth would seem strange as we look out the window.
bethyada on 21 Nov 2008 at 2:19 am #

Michael, I don’t have strong eschatological leanings, I think futurism has some merit but partial preterism seems to also, and probably more so than historicism.

I think you need to edit your post to make it clearer. Preterism unqualified implies partial preterism and has a significant following within mainstream evangelicals. Hyper-preterism is rejected by partial preterists as strongly as by futurists (or nearly so) I would imagine. In fact the similarity seems to be in that they unfortunately share part of a name.

But that means little, the Exclusive Brethren share part of a name with the Open Brethren yet the latter have more in common with Baptists than their partial name sakes.
Cadis on 21 Nov 2008 at 7:23 am #

” We have to act with integrity about what we give our time to study. This is simply not something that deserves the time.”

It is an interuption.

Good post made my coffee taste better this morning.
Lisa R on 21 Nov 2008 at 7:57 am #

Michael, your post reminds me of something I learning to do and need to do a whole lot better…pick my battles, don’t waste time discussing things that won’t matter just because I believe I’m right. Thanks.

Btw, I hope you trotted down the street to Federal Hill for some great italian food.
Mason on 21 Nov 2008 at 9:01 am #

“Preterism unqualified implies partial preterism and has a significant following within mainstream evangelicals”

I’ll second that.
I agree in large part with partial preterism, specifically that of authors like N.T. Wright an R.T. France (Sproul wrote a book on it as well that had some good points but was not quite as exegetically grounded I thought).
It seems that linking much of the apocalyptic language of the NT to the fall of Jerusalem and perhaps the Roman Empire makes a lot of sense contextually, historically, exegetically, and when we consider the use of that kind of language in other Second Temple writings.
However, as a partial or ‘orthodox-preterist’ the real, physical, future return of Jesus to judge and renew humanity and creation is an extraordinarily important part of my theology which is not removable. As such, when I hear full Preterists saying things like that Jesus really returned, the resurrection happened, etc. this strikes me as actually even less Biblical or logical than the KJV only crowd.
Its unfortunate that the extreme positions of a few cast a negative light on a larger and well grounded section of Christian eschatological belief.
Matt Turner on 21 Nov 2008 at 10:09 am #

@ Mason “Its unfortunate that the extreme positions of a few cast a negative light on a larger and well grounded section of Christian eschatological belief.”

I absolutely agree Mason but it’s not even limited to eschatological beliefs, it some Christian beliefs in general.
ChadS on 21 Nov 2008 at 10:37 am #

Michael,

You’re right, and few people today like to admit, but not all ideas or thoughts are created equal. As the teacher in the Theology Program you have a right to decide what goes into the curriculum and an idea that isn’t accepted by even subset of scholars might not make the cut when it comes to that particular presentation.

It’s just you making a sober rational judgment as to what belongs in a course and what doesn’t. I was never taught flat-earth theory or even geocentrism in school. Was our teacher being dimissive to these ideas? Maybe, but not without reason.

ChadS
David on 21 Nov 2008 at 10:58 am #

The TTP was very fair and balanced in my opinion. A real blessing in my spiritual journey for sure.
scott gray on 21 Nov 2008 at 2:30 pm #

cmp–

how did you derive the methodology of ‘having a responsibility to teach what is either biblically viable, historically significant, or contemporarily relevant?’ i’m currious about how this evolved for you.

scott
Jason on 21 Nov 2008 at 3:18 pm #

Biblically viable: able to be derived from the Bible with use of contextually correct interpretation and exegesis.

Historically significant: a position held by a significant portion of the Church in the last 2000 years/addressing a situation experienced by the Church in the past.

Contemporarily relevant: a position held by a significant portion of the Church in the present day/addressing a situation experienced by the Church in the present day.

The criteria could be summed up as:

What does the Bible say?

What did it mean to Christians gone by?

What does it mean today?

No evolution required.
scott gray on 21 Nov 2008 at 6:09 pm #

jason–

where’d the methodology come from?
C Michael Patton on 21 Nov 2008 at 9:35 pm #

It is a methodology that I have chosen in teaching. It does not necessarily find an articulation outside of what I believe to be a common sense approach to Christian theological education. I came up with it in 2001, but is seems to be the unspoken method of many teachers.
scott gray on 21 Nov 2008 at 9:44 pm #

cmp–

have you written an essay about this methodological model somewhere? how did you come up with it?

scott
C Michael Patton on 21 Nov 2008 at 9:46 pm #

no, like i said it is more assumed.
Daniel Eaton on 22 Nov 2008 at 1:51 am #

While I agree that some preterists have a single focus (like the KJVO folks), isn’t throwing out Preterism as a whole because of the most extreme view of it a bit of a strawman? I’ve never faulted you in not covering it more, but this piece seems more of a dismissal of any kind of preterism because of the extreme nature of the hyper-perterist interpretation. I’ve heard that DTS has (or had) a very dispensational leaning. Does/did that have any impact on your views of preterism? Do you think the Olivet Discourse is a future event? If it is even possible that it was speaking of things that that generation saw, doesn’t at least partial preterism deserve a spot on the list of viable options? If it *isn’t* a “viable” interpretation, should that too not be explained? Whether you are for it or against it, at least mention it. To ignore it not the proper answer. But then again, I think the course is fine.
Daniel
Peter on 22 Nov 2008 at 6:14 am #

Could the whole history of the church be wrong about apostolic succession, the reality of the body of Christ in the Eucharist, the necessity of tradition, etc etc etc? Well, “yes” said a guy called Martin Luther.

Don’t teach preterism because its a load of rubbish, but to not teach it because of whether the history of the church could be wrong… well, how can you be protestant and say that’s a good argument?
C Michael Patton on 22 Nov 2008 at 9:25 am #

Daniel, I am talking about a formal adherence to preterism, not taking a preteristic scheme used to interpret some prophetic events. In the end, preterist simply means “historic” or “history” or “past.” All people take some prophecies historically (i.e. they already took place).

Yes, I am dismissing a formal adherence to what is called preterism, full-preterism, and hyper preterism (not the so-called partial preterism) just as I can’t responsibly teach KJV Onlyism.

Hope that makes more sense.
Jason on 22 Nov 2008 at 1:29 pm #

Just for clarification, i wasn’t one to complain about this site. I stumbled upon this post via Google alerts.

This post by Patton is filled with fallacies.

- argumentum ad populum
- guilt by association
- Non Causa Pro Causa
- begging the question of who the “entire” world of scholarship is and so on, implying that there are no full pret scholars.

And then you list a group of scholars who can’t even agree with each other. Piper just got done making a video about the election in which he uses I Co. 7 to argue that we are still in the “present distress”. I love Piper, but he throws all exegetical sense out the window when it comes to eschatology.

oh well – but hey, now i’m just being argumentative and imbalanced, right? ( ;
C Michael Patton on 22 Nov 2008 at 1:38 pm #

Jason, good comments. I expected much more of these.

In the end, it has to do with judgments that one has to make, not argumentative fallacies. I was not arguing for or against the position, I was just saying that a teacher has limited time and has to choose which positions to represent in a responsible way. There are dozens of positions that I don’t teach. One could not say that I don’t cover the KJV Only movement because of these fallacies based on what I have said above.

As I have said before, I don’t teach flat earth option either. Do you fault me with such fallacies for not teaching it as a valid option? Same thing with KJV Onlyism.

It all comes down to the criteria one uses to decide what to include and what not to include. Argumentative fallacies deal with engaging the arguments in a proper way.

Thanks for the comments.
Jason C on 22 Nov 2008 at 1:50 pm #

For the record. Number 18 Jason isn’t me.

Henceforth Jason C.
Jason on 22 Nov 2008 at 2:07 pm #

Michael,

But the judgments you are making are fallacies. I don’t buy into your compartmentalizing of the use of fallacies.

A fallacy is a fallacy.

I understand you have limited time and have to choose your battles; however, you DID take shots at Preterism and did so fallaciously.

You didn’t just say, “i’m not going to teach preterism because my time is limited and i personally don’t think it is worth it.”

You went way beyond that.

You say “It all comes down to the criteria one uses to decide…”

And one of the criteria you mentioned was that Preterism is not “biblically viable”.

Ok….but where did you prove this? You don’t. You just throw it out there; that and a couple of fallacies.

To say that it is not biblically viable involves an exegetical argument, the very thing you say you’re not going to waste time on.

I don’t find it very professional to argue that you’re not going to waste time on something that you don’t mind taking little pot shots at.
C Michael Patton on 22 Nov 2008 at 2:10 pm #

Thanks Jason for your continued perseverence, but these are just my opinions as a teacher. Take them or leave them. To continue this conversation, ironically, would become a big waste of both our times
Jason on 22 Nov 2008 at 2:19 pm #

Michael,

Ok, but i think what i have pointed out is one reason why you find some preterists “imbalanced” and “passionate.”

It would have been best for you to just say, “I don’t wish to deal with Preterism, I have my reasons…” and just move on.

But you didn’t. Do you not expect people to respond to your appeal to the majority? Is there any accountability?

The preterists i know don’t bug people who say nothing about preterism at all – they bug people who like to shout obsentities from the bleachers, but don’t want to suit up all the way and join the game.

I think your post here is an example of that. It would have been best to perhaps not even post it at all and just go about your T.P. business.

When you throw a view into a bad light and appeal to popular teaching, expect people to respond.

Takes for your time.
C Michael Patton on 22 Nov 2008 at 2:27 pm #

Jason, you are probably right.
C Michael Patton on 22 Nov 2008 at 2:32 pm #

So is Daniel.
JL Vaughn on 22 Nov 2008 at 6:19 pm #

Michael,

I would have taken your points against preterism seriously except for one issue. Matthew 24 has historically been understood to concern the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in AD 70. In your Theology program, you bring what was once commonly understood to be fulfilled into service to support what is still future. You at least owe your readers and students better.

For example, Eusebius, the historian spent most of Book 3 of his History of the Church and much of his work, Defense of the Gospel demonstrating fulfillment.
C Michael Patton on 22 Nov 2008 at 6:24 pm #

JL, there is a difference between taking a preteristic interpretation of certian passage (which is most certianly legitimate and necessary) and being a preterist.

I don’t ever remember taking a purely futuristic stance on Matt. 24. I can’t imagine that I would have seeing as I have never held to such. If I come across as such, it is a miscommunication.
Nick on 23 Nov 2008 at 9:39 am #

As an orthodox Preterist, I am quite disturbed that good and orthodox Preterism that is held by a number of evangelicals like myself seems to be automatically confused with neohymenaeanism. That teaching is definitely a heresy, but it’s a disservice to Preterism to give them the name “Preterist.” I don’t even like to call them full Preterists. I prefer to call them by the name that clearly distinguishes.

Thus, I call myself a Preterist. I would have preferred then that some other term had been used besides Preterist to describe the heretics.
JL Vaughn on 23 Nov 2008 at 4:02 pm #

Thank-you Nick.

I find your name-calling quite refreshing.

There has never been an ecumenical council on eschatology. Therefore, there is no statement from the church as to what eschatological beliefs are heresy or even heterodoxy. Just your own opinion.

The two great liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Basil’s and Chrysostom’s, were the very definition of Orthodoxy from around AD 400 when they and the Nicene Creed were introduced to the Church until about AD 1200 when the Roman Church dropped them. They were recited today in every Eastern Orthodox congregation in the entire world, as they have been every Sunday for 1600 years.

It is safe to say that the teaching on the second coming in these liturgies is the most commonly taught view in the entire history of the church.

In both Liturgies, the reading of the creed is followed by communion. Communion contains this statement “Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming.”

Take it at face value or reinterpret it to your heart’s content. The church has taught a fulfilled second coming for as long as the Nicene Creed as been available to the general church-going public.

Blessings.
Mike G on 24 Nov 2008 at 12:07 pm #

Hi Michael,

I’d be interested in your take on the partial preterist movement ala Hank H., RC Sproul, Steve Gregg, etc. I for one came from a dispy background but have found Gregg especially convincing.
Joe on 25 Nov 2008 at 9:06 am #

JL Vaughn:

Methinks you should do a little study on how the various parts of the Divine Liturgy came to be, and what they mean.

They can’t simply be taken literally.
britphil on 25 Nov 2008 at 11:46 am #

“I agree in large part with partial preterism, specifically that of authors like N.T. Wright an R
.T. France

Hi Mason.

Hope you don’t mind but I would be grateful if you could expand a bit on what NT Wright’s partial [preterist views are.

The thought of gangs of evangelical scholars skilfully sidestepping a stall which NT Wright migh go some way towards concurring to is somewhat surprising. Given the tremendous receprtion he received at tje meting of Roman Catholic scholares he attended in Rome 9which is somewhat ironic given the cklassical Catholic stance whioch would not deem his ordination vows as valid or authentix) I find it a bit surprising.

If by saying that he is partially preterist, you are referring to his belief that he belives it is the job and work of Christ’s discipkles to bring his kingdom to bear here on earth as it si in heaven, to quote as fairly famosu prayer we are all familiar with then I am with him all the way and would have to be considferd a semi-
preteristt in part.

I would be worried about an eschatology that was soley furutre based but which did not emphaise the role of Jesus’ followers in assisting Jesus to partially bring his Kingdom and its values on earth ahead of his second and final return. If the Theology Program does not serious want its students to engage with this issue then I feel that it is deficient.

Plerase do not get me wrong. I do not believe that Jesus has already returned for a second time or that the final resurrection has taken palce. I am all with Jason’s very first comment…takwe a look atof then window, read a newspaper or watch the news and surely you would have to change your nmind very quickly.

But neither do I find an eshatology that is solely based on the future return of Jesus to be theologically satisfying without the desire to allow God’s kingdom to come here on earth as it is in heaven.

If I have completely got the wrong wnd of the stick in the partial-preterism issue (it won’t be the first time and hey,..guess hwat it won’t be the last)! I am sure that a few of you will not delay too long in letting me know.
britphil on 25 Nov 2008 at 11:53 am #

Two weeks off hasn’t done anything to alleviate the hasty posting I am afraid…here is how the post should have read.

“I agree in large part with partial preterism, specifically that of authors like N.T. Wright an R
.T. France

Hi Mason.

Hope you don’t mind but I would be grateful if you could expand a bit on what NT Wright’s partial preterist views are.

The thought of gangs of evangelical scholars skilfully sidestepping a stall which NT Wright might go some way towards concurring with is somewhat surprising. Given the tremendous reception he received at the recent meeting of Roman Catholic scholars he attended in Rome (which is somewhat ironic given the classical Catholic stance which would not deem his ordination vows as valid or authentic) I find it a bit surprising.

If by saying that he is partially preterist, you are referring to his belief that he belives it is the job and work of Christ’s disciples to bring his kingdom to bear here on earth as it is in heaven, to quote a fairly famous prayer we are all familiar with then I am with him all the way and would have to be considered a semi-preterist in part.

I would be worried about an eschatology that was soley and rigidly future-based but which did not emphasisee the role of Jesus’ followers in assisting Jesus to partially bring his Kingdom and its values to bear on earth ahead of his second and final return. If the Theology Program does not serious want its students to engage with this issue then I feel that it is deficient.

Please do not get me wrong. I do not believe that Jesus has already returned for a second time or that the final resurrection has taken place. I am all with Jason’s very first comment…take a quick glance out of the window, read a newspaper or watch the news and surely you would have to change your mind very quickly.

But neither do I find an eschatology that is solely based on the future return of Jesus to be theologically satisfying without the desire to allow God’s kingdom to come here on earth as it is in heaven.

If I have completely got the wrong end of the stick in the partial-preterism issue (it won’t be the first time and hey,..guess what it won’t be the last)! I am sure that a few of you will not delay too long in letting me know.

Hopefully this now looks as though it reads in English rather than Hungarian!
Daniel Eaton on 25 Nov 2008 at 12:26 pm #

Joe,
Since you suggest that the Liturgy “simply can’t be taken literally”, I’d suggest that the burden of proof is yours to explain why it doesn’t mean what it says. To put it another way, if it meant exactly what it said, would they have said it some *other* way?
Daniel
Joe on 25 Nov 2008 at 3:11 pm #

Daniel Eaton on 25 Nov 2008 at 12:26 pm # Joe, Since you suggest that the Liturgy “simply can’t be taken literally”, I’d suggest that the burden of proof is yours to explain why it doesn’t mean what it says. To put it another way, if it meant exactly what it said, would they have said it some *other* way?
Daniel

Daniel, et al.:

My post as I worded it was somewhat misleading. What I meant to say or suggest is that what the Divine Liturgy literally says shouldn’t be used as a proof-text for arguing that a fulfilled second coming or Preterism has perhaps the longest continuing pedigree of any eschatology in church history.

There was liturgical development, and there was a context and reason and basis for expanding the earlier liturgies and the statements in the Creed to what has now become a very long all-encompassing prayer. Books by Bradshaw and Dix and Bouyer and others on the history and development of the Liturgy and the Eucharist are among the many useful sources of information on how and why these prayers came to be added and expanded.

As I recall (it’s been awhile since I read them), the Divine Liturgy is not saying or meaning that the Second Coming has already happened.
Virgil on 05 Dec 2008 at 1:26 pm #

So is now the litmus test for a theological construct how seriously it is being taken in “academic circles?”
Brian on 06 Dec 2008 at 7:11 pm #

Hi Michael,

I fully agree that Preterism lacks theological significance. However, neither should it be under-estimated. As a former Full and Partial Preterist, I am well qualified to assess the dangers of this system. Although it seems nonsensical to most Christians, once one has ‘bought into’ its hermeneutical package, the chances of that person ever embracing the truth again are 1 in a billion. What makes its dangerous is the tenacious hold it has over the individual. Preterism has broken up homes, caused divorces, led to sickness, drug abuse, depression, and even suicide. If there’s any such thing as “poison theology,” Preterism is it. Also, it is deeply Anti-Semitic. Its leaders are on a war-path to destroy evangelical Christianity, and many of them have infiltrated orthodox Christian churches. True, not many will be found willing listen to them. But the few who do will be eternally lost unless someone pulls them out of the fire. Hence the need to warn others of this insidious system of error.
At present, I run a blog geared to exposing this theology. http://antipreterist.wordpress.com. I hope everyone investigating this doctrine takes the time to carefully through the files, that he/she may be armed if and when Preterism comes out of the woodwork.

Blessings,

Brian Simmons
Gary DeMar on 06 Dec 2008 at 8:04 pm #

Where is “Road Island”?
Roderick on 06 Dec 2008 at 10:05 pm #

Mr. Patton,
As a FORMER HYPERPRETERIST of 15 years, I applaud your coming out & saying that hyperpreterism is basically a theological joke. To believe in hyperpreterism one must first believe that God has failed to sustain among His Church for 2000 years, a most basic form of eschatology. Hyperpreterism REQUIRES a conspiracy theory mentality.

One important note, there is really NO SUCH THING AS PARTIAL-PRETERISM. The distinction should simply be preterism & hyperpreterism. The hyper prefix is accurate syntax because hyper simply means to “go beyond the original intent & scope” & HYPERpreterism certainly goes beyond the original historic form of preterism just as HYPERCalvinism goes beyond original historic Calvinism. Please join me in NOT letting the hyperpreterists continue to high-jack terminology.

BTW. JL Vaughn & Virgil are hyperpreterists & are certainly living up to your perception of the hyperpreterist of ETS.

P.S. Be cautious with Gary DeMar he make almost no distinction between historic preterism & hyperpreterism & is actually credited by many hyperpreterist for leading them into hyperpreterism. He refuses to call it heresy.
Daniel Eaton on 06 Dec 2008 at 10:59 pm #

Brian, I believe you forgot “original sin”, “global warming”, and “poverty” in your list of things Preterism is to blame for. LOL
Brian on 07 Dec 2008 at 11:16 am #

Daniel,

Add flippancy, irreverence, and worldliness to the list, and you’ll have it right on target.

Preterism produces nothing wholesome. It is a moral disease that must be eradicated.

Brian
Jason C on 07 Dec 2008 at 1:16 pm #

Pifflebunk Brian.

Preterism, as opposed to hyperpreterism, is a position within the range of Christian orthodoxy.

The initiation of the Kingdom of God within the first century does make far more sense of Jesus’ claims that it would be soon than the dispensationalists belief that it has been 2000 years and counting.

Charges of antisemitism don’t really stack up, after all if you’re going to be uncharitable the dispensationalist belief in an immanent massacre of Jews greater even than the holocaust could be seen as antisemitic too. All orthodox Christians believe that the Jewish people will continue to exist until all of God’s promises have been fulfilled, leading to Chesterton’s observation that they are the only immortal people. No other nations survival is guaranteed. America, and Americans, can disappear. Europe can go back to living in leather huts. England can drown in a flood of Islamic immigrants, but the Jews will remain.

As for your last comment, you’re confusing preterism with atheism.
Daniel Eaton on 07 Dec 2008 at 1:19 pm #

I’d beg to differ about Preterism producing nothing wholesome and being a “moral disease”. I am not fully convinced of it’s validity, but extreme ad hominem statements against it make me more likely to question the moral wholesomeness of the person making those kinds of verbal attacks than it does anything else.
Virgil on 07 Dec 2008 at 2:49 pm #

“I fully agree that Preterism lacks theological significance.”

For an insignificant movement you put an awful lot of effort into slandering it and its proponents. I think you have some serious issues…
Brian on 07 Dec 2008 at 5:15 pm #

It amazes me how people could call any theology which twists and garbles the Scriptures “orthodox.” As for the resurrection, second coming, etc., that doesn’t make any one “orthodox.” Arius held all those essentials, and yet he was a heretic. As for the cultural issue, Preterism is definitely Anti-Semitic! Isn’t it true that you call Israel a “great whore,” and claim that she was divorced by God in A.D. 70?? Of course you do. But I see you’re trying to turn the charge back on me. Well, a great many people will be killed during the tribulation– not Jews only, but Gentiles also. This is why it is important to preach the Gospel to as many people as we can NOW. Once the rapture of the church takes place, salvation will become less likely. Those left alive on earth will ALL pass through trial and tribulation. In order to be saved, most will have to suffer martyrdom. A very bad time for ANYONE left on earth. It’s Preterists who believe that tribulation only applies to the Jews!

Also, Israel is the only immortal nation. Read Jeremiah 30: 11; 31: 35-37. Israel is the one people with a God-given right to govern the nations. Deny this, and you deny the authority of God.

Brian
Jason C on 07 Dec 2008 at 5:48 pm #

sigh

Since God Himself frequently calls Israel a whore and a harlot throughout the first testament it’s not antisemitic but simply following a Biblical precedent, even if I were, although I am not.

John, in Revelation, also feels free to liken Jerusalem, where our Lord was crucified, to Sodom and Egypt. He also depicts redeemed Israel as a woman clothed with the sun and crowned with stars, the mother of he who would rule the nations with an iron rod, so he wasn’t beating up Israel in every passage.

My experience of people who claim to understand Revelation is that they usually don’t.

Seriously, stop reading the Left Behind series. As a fictional story it’s passable, but from a historical/theological perspective it’s on a par with 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will be in 1988.
Jason C on 07 Dec 2008 at 5:52 pm #

Also I’m fairly sure that Babylon, the Great Whore, is indeed either Rome (not the Roman Catholic Church, but actual Rome) or perhaps Jerusalem.
Brian on 07 Dec 2008 at 6:44 pm #

Jason C,

You forget that I once used to be a Preterist. I already know what you believe, and I assure you that Israel is not the harlot of Rev. 17-18. Preterists often confuse verses which have similar language, thinking they are parallel, when they’re not. Read Isaiah 23: 15-16; 47: 1-11; Jeremiah 50-51; Ezekiel 26-27; Nahum 3: 1-7; Zechariah 2: 6-7. As you see, similar language doesn’t always mean identity.

BTW, I’ve never read the “Left Behind” series. However, I HAVE read the Bible. The Bible says that when Jesus Christ returns, some will be taken, and others will be left (Matt. 24: 40-41). To apply this to the destruction of Jerusalem is preposterous. But accepting the plain literal statement of God’s word, we learn that some will be left behind to face judgment. This is all the more reason for getting our doctrine right.

Brian
Roderick on 07 Dec 2008 at 7:32 pm #

Brain, hyperpreterism aside, Matt. 24:40-41 in its full context is that those taken are to be TAKEN IN DESTRUCTION. They aren’t taken to heavenly bliss. See full context Matt. 24:37-41. Compare also Luke 17:26-37 & you’ll clearly see that the TAKEN/LEFT BEHIND isn’t as dispensationalism claims.

I’m sorry to see you do this Brian, in your zeal against hyperpreterism you fall back into the error of dispensationalism — both are errors. As a matter of fact, I believe hyperpreterism is merely an over-reaction to dispensationalism yet is even more dangerous. Just look how arrogant its main advocates are (ie Virgil here).

Mr. Patton, you do well to avoid all appearance of evil by not supporting or promoting the heresy of hyperpreterism.

And yes, the “litmus test” for historic Christianity is does it hold to the very things Christians held to since Christ came the first time, since He hand-picked apostles to be the foundation of the Church? It is amazing that the Christians 1 day before the year AD70 believed & advocated Christ would come again AND the day after AD70 those same Christians continued to believe & advocate Christ would come again YET hyperpreterists want us to believe there has been a 2000 year conspiracy. Maybe that kind of thing works in Romania but not in America where people will seek out the truth!

Whatever hyperpreterism is, it is NOT the same as historic Christianity.
Brian on 07 Dec 2008 at 8:22 pm #

Roderick,

The rapture is a Scriptural doctrine. Read 1 Thess. 5: 3-4. Paul says that the day of the Lord will come as a “thief” upon all who are not looking. Christ said the same thing-that it would come as a snare upon all the earth (Luke 21: 35). Then look what He said in Luke 21: 36. Christ compared His coming to the flood of Noah (Matt. 24: 38-39). This is the context of “one taken, the other left.” Remember, Noah and his family entered into the ark seven days before the flood began (Gen. 7: 10). So he and his family were already sheltered safely from the judgments. 1 Thess. 5: 3 informs us that the “travail” (tribulation) is synonymous with the “Day of the Lord.” If “one taken” means “taken in judgment,” then what about the ones that are “left???”

Christ is talking about two different classes of people. The ones “left behind” are the ones who must “flee to the mountains.” The rapture is a special blessing given to those who watch and wait for Christ’s coming. Compare with Revelation 3: 10 with Revelation 2: 22. The true church will not undergo the trib. They will be “taken in” like Noah, and “taken out” like Lot. I know of no other view which is Scriptural.

Brian
Jason C on 07 Dec 2008 at 10:28 pm #

Ho hum.

In context it would seem that Babylon in Revalation 17:18 is indeed Rome.

Since when was Rome a city that the entire world fornicated with?

Not in about 1500 years.

I deny there is a future tribulation Brian. The idea that the world is going to conquer the Church necessitating an emergency airlift out is preposterous, or perhaps defeatist is a better description. Meanwhile non-American Christians who actually live with persecution might wonder why Americans have this fascination with something they’ve never experienced.

In context Matthew 24:38-39 was referring to the coming destruction being sudden, like the coming of the flood, when it comes one will be taken (destroyed) and one will be left. Whether Noah’s experience will be repeated (remembering that he did experience the flood, he just wasn’t drowned by it) is immaterial to that particular comment.

Also, how sudden is the coming of the Lord going to be if the Christians (oh sorry, true Church, whatever that is) all disappear first?

Over-literalism in the treatment of apocalyptic literature is the main problem with many peoples’ interpretation of Revelation. It was probably written in the mid-sixties as a comfort to Christians experiencing persecution under Nero and assuring them that they would soon be vindicated. That the beast would be subdued.

2 Thessalonians 1:1-12 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 provide very vivid imagery that the Church in Thessalonia was already experiencing trials, and Paul’s promise was that God would soon avenge them. 2000 years later they’re still waiting?
EricW on 07 Dec 2008 at 11:23 pm #

Seriously, stop reading the Left Behind series. As a fictional story it’s passable, but from a historical/theological perspective it’s on a par with 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will be in 1988.

And from a literary perspective, it would be a serious contender to win the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest – and I mean the whole series, not just the opening sentence.

As a former Full and Partial Preterist, I am well qualified to assess the dangers of this system. Although it seems nonsensical to most Christians, once one has ‘bought into’ its hermeneutical package, the chances of that person ever embracing the truth again are 1 in a billion.

So, Hank “The Bible Answer Man” Hanegraaf and R. C. Sproul have no hope of embracing the truth again?
C Michael Patton on 07 Dec 2008 at 11:28 pm #

From what I hear, it is about time to close this thread. Thanks for participating and remember to always keep think kind and on track, even if you strongly disagree. This is fitting friends.