 |
|
|
"I personally believe that the MARK will be either an invisible laser tattoo (they are in the skin) or a micro chip, which will be placed under the skin having the Uniform Product Code (UPC). This MARK, a type of bar code in the skin or on the micro chip, would be scanned at the point of trade."
-- Gary D. Blevins
|
|
| |
Preterism: Problems with Preterism
Posted on Saturday, December 29 @ 14:23:55 PST by Virgil |
|
by Philip B. Brown
Preterism means past fulfillment. The opposite of the preterist view is generally the futurist view. Various prophetic passages are debated as to whether they are already fulfilled, or whether they are to be fulfilled in the future. Passages that are often debated along these lines are Daniel 9, Zechariah 14, Matthew 24, Luke 21, and the book of Revelation. Some people take the preterist view on some of these passages, and the futurist view on other passages. Many people consider Matthew 24 and Luke 21 to be partially fulfilled, but to still have future aspects to their fulfillment. Generally, the preterist view of a passage is that it was fulfilled on or prior to 70 AD, when Rome conquered Jerusalem and scattered the Jews. With regard to Revelation itself, however, some preterists consider fulfillment to be as late as 400 AD.
Various aspects of the preteristism have been around for most of church history. But with regard to the preterist interpretation of Revelation itself, it dates back to the Catholic Church’s Council of Trent, which was held to condemn the Protestant Reformation. The Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (AD 1554-1613) published a 900-page book on Revelation that introduced the preterist interpretation of Revelation. The preterist views of Matthew 24 and Daniel 9, however, have been around since the early church fathers.
Right after Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple, the disciples asked, “When will all this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3). Does Scripture give us signs, or events that must happen just prior to Christ’s second coming? Will there be a time of a literal antichrist, when a man rules the world and when he literally “sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God?” (2nd Thessalonians 2:1-4) Will Christ return at the literal battle of Armageddon? Are the events that are happening today in Israel a part of what the Bible prophesied? Is there anything in unfulfilled Bible prophecy that must happen before Christ returns? Or does all unfulfilled prophecy speak only about the actual second coming, the judgment, and the eternal state thereafter? To one degree or another, preterism believes there is no prophecy after 70 AD, other than the actual second coming, the judgment, and the eternal state thereafter.
In recent years, there has been a growing belief system called full-preterism. Full-preterism takes past-fulfillment one-step further by saying that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled by 70 AD. This includes the second coming, the judgment, the new heavens and new earth, and the eternal state. Full preterists refer to the prior preterist belief system as partial preterism. Perhaps this is done because full preterists believe that their system is the logical conclusion to the preterist hermeneutical system and arguments. With this I agree. If I were to adopt the preterist hermeneutical system and arguments, I would probably be a full-preterist myself. But I’m not a preterist. I do believe in future unfulfilled signs of Christ’s return. While it’s certainly descriptive, I consider the term “partial preterism” a somewhat condescending term. Preterism was around long before full-preterism. Therefore, in this article I will refer to the prior belief system as historical preteristism.
Click here to read the entire article
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Futurism from Genesis 1:1 Forward (Score: 1)
 by MiddleKnowledge on Saturday, December 29 @ 16:26:16 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) |
Wow,
That was an interesting read. I found these sections particularly interesting:
"As Peter prophesied, the full preterists of this generation deliberately forget that the heavens and the earth is a term that’s defined in Genesis 1:1, and that the meaning of that term should remain consistent."
Does it not appear that his futurism is rooted in a particular reading of Genesis 1? Then there is this:
"Genesis 1:1 clearly establishes the heavens and the earth as being God’s Creation. Just because Isaiah may have used it figuratively in poetry, does not mean that Peter was using it figuratively. Peter was going out of his way make his words be literal. Peter was not writing poetry like Isaiah. He is comparing the destruction of the heavens and earth with the literal destruction of the earth by water at the Great Flood. The destruction by water was literal. And thus the destruction by fire is also literal. Peter even says that the destruction of the heavens and earth by fire is with the “same word” as the destruction earth by water."
Ahh yes... A global flood is used as this author's argument against preterism. What if the Genesis flood was local rather than global?
I believe preterists (who actually believe preterism is true) should pay attention to this article. Futurism is ultimately rooted in young-earth creationist views of Genesis. Our view of creation, the curse, and the flood have immense implications for eschatology. So long as young-earth creationism holds a death-grip on modern Christians, preterism will remain a minority view of eschatology. Why? Because preterism conflicts with modern young-earth creationism on many, many levels.
Blessings,
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Saturday, December 29 @ 18:05:23 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Saturday, December 29 @ 18:29:14 PST
Re: Problems with Preterism (Score: 1)
by Islamaphobe on Sunday, December 30 @ 19:40:50 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | I have worked my way through this long article, paying particular treatment to the author's (mis)treatment of Daniel and Matthew 24, and find myself totally unpersuaded by his main arguments. I have MANY points of disagreement with Brown. Aside from his inability to produce an exegesis of the seventy weeks of Daniel that sounds at all persuasive, I was particularly struck by the implausibility of trying to make Daniel 11:36-45 apply to the future. He seems to be totally unaware of the work that has been done relating those verses to the time of Herod the Great. Having a time gap running all the way from the days of Antiochus IV, who died in 164 or 163 BC to a time in our future is, let us say, quite a stretch. And yet he asserts that "Daniel 11:30-45 remains as unfulfilled prophecy before the return [i.e. Second Coming] of Christ" and that "Daniel's prophecy jumps from the anti-christ at the time of the Maccabees to the anti-christ at the time of the end," meaning in our future. Like many futurist apologists who attack preterists, he engages in complicated maneuvers to alter the apparent meaning of Scripture while claiming that do precisely what he is doing. Talk about projection!
He's right about one thing, anyway. Daniel 12:4 assures us that knowledge of the meaning of Scripture will increase, and it is certainly increasing very rapidly at the present time. As a consequence, the prospects for dispensationalism and the type of historical premillennialism that Brown favors look rather dim.
John S. Evans
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Problems with Preterism (Score: 1)
by Starlight on Monday, December 31 @ 04:36:00 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | I have just glanced over the article and a few of his other selections but I find the author an impressive student of the word. He has made some good progress in many areas but like John says in Revelation “I find this one thing against him”. Basically it appears that he is a loner type of author and expositor which is a dangerous method and leaves a person vulnerable to ones hidden presuppositions until it’s too late, generally after publication. This is where someone like the author would have been much better served by putting forth his propositions into the fire of debate among peers before moving forward. This is exactly the beauty of a site such as Planet Preterist where one may refine their arguments under the fire of critical analysis and lose some of the poor arguments that just do not hold up. The preterist community is such a diverse and growing group of people that if one takes advantage of their numbers they should be able improve their work if they will discard the hubris concerning ones inflated understandings.
It’s obvious that this man has performed a good amount of research concerning Preterism which is clear from his quotes of many Preterist authors but the bottom line is he still has some literal reading baggage which he has not completely discarded in his exegetical approach to scripture. Tim Martin and Dr. John Evans have pointed out just a few of his problems.
The question should always be asked of one concerning their underlying motivations in searching the scriptures and stopping short of ultimately reaching a purer understanding of the truth of scriptures. Usually it is due to one not wanting to go down the slippery slope of heresy and so they come to a comfort zone that they will not step across even when it may lead to a greater enlightenment. Isolating oneself from peer review helps contribute to these errors of judgment thus limiting the quality of one’s work.
Norm
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Islamaphobe on Monday, December 31 @ 05:45:05 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Monday, December 31 @ 06:39:44 PST
- by Starlight on Monday, December 31 @ 08:27:54 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Monday, December 31 @ 08:49:56 PST
- by Virgil on Monday, December 31 @ 09:44:56 PST
- by JL on Monday, December 31 @ 11:35:28 PST
- by Virgil on Monday, December 31 @ 11:47:28 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Monday, December 31 @ 12:34:01 PST
| 
|
