NT Wright and preterism

[quetzalphoenix]

I just finished working through NT Wright's "Jesus and the Victory of God" (phew!!) I have to confess that I feel out of my league, but as I was reading his definition of Jesus' role as an eschatological prophet, I kept getting vibes of preterism.

The kingdom and the new world order are brought into existence at the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple...the eschatological language of Jesus is not pointing to the end of the 'space-time world' but is a representation of sociological reality...not a metaphysical one.

Am I wrong? Is someone out there with a better grasp of Wright (and preterism) able to give me a fuller understanding of his view of the inaguration of the kingdom and the "end times"? Is this it, or are we to expect a bodily second coming? (he seems to poo-poo the idea of Jesus as a 'transcendental being' coming on literal clouds of glory...)

Thanks!

[Hitch]

I dont know Wright but I ll take a shot stab at the rest..

Jesus fully completed the tasks he was sent for. Doing all that we are too weak to accomplish, in order that the Kingdom would grow throughout history. Our commision then is an on going historical process. As World Missionary Assiatance Plan puts it To Gain For The Lamb The Reward Of His Sacrfice. As Christ made that Sacrfice in history our shared victory is in history (time) as well.

So we ,meaning the 'preterist' here (more on that in a bit) agree , the NT, in particular Pete ,Paul and especially John and Christ are not speaking of events concerned with the end of the physical planet, but the end of the old regime the old world system of daily animal sacrfices. Which for reasons God knows required the forceful removal of the kingdom from the apostates. Resulting, perhaps its better to say , culminating in the Destruction.

We obviosly have a glaring problem with Wright. The Scriptures are clear about the eventual end of history. Jesus spoke plainly of the 'last day'. Paul invoked Psalm 110 in describing the end of history with his apostolic interpretation that conforms to our Lord's words of John six. History halts at the Resurrection of 'all who are in the graves'. Judgement and eternity follow directly.

So we often use the term orthodox preterist (personally I prefer Post Millennial) is self discritption to make of point of not being mistaken for those who have adopted the name and deny the furture general resurrection and bodily return of Christ to end history.

Take care

Hitch

[quetzalphoenix]

Yesterday @ 06:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50724#post50724)
Hitch:
So we often use the term orthodox preterist (personally I prefer Post Millennial) is self discritption to make of point of not being mistaken for those who have adopted the name and deny the furture general resurrection and bodily return of Christ to end history.


So are all Postmils preterists? Or are all preterists Postmil?
Pardon my ignorance...(I lean towards panmil since I haven't done enough reading...it'll all pan out in the end, you know...)

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 05:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
quetzalphoenix:

So are all Postmils preterists? Or are all preterists Postmil?
Pardon my ignorance...(I lean towards panmil since I haven't done enough reading...it'll all pan out in the end, you know...) No. Although it seems modern preterist positions begin with a PM outlook and often, as in my personal case, a more detailed preteristic view emerged as DF (dispensational /futurists) positions were constantly viewed and reviewed in the light of Post Millennialism. Also one of the few PM voices of the heyday of DF thinking, the late 1950s, Lorraine Boettner( The Millennium 1957) was not a preterist. Yet Boettner greatly influnced Gentry . Whos 1992 He Shall have Dominion(dedicated to Boettner) and Chilton's 1987 The Days of Vengeance were published by the same house, ICE, Institute for Christian Economics.

The general view of the publisher ,Gary North, and the PM writers above, is that God's blessings will be increasingly visible in history as they accumulate among those who keep His covenants. This is contrary to the most A Mil views and all pre-mil views. Citing as best evidence the fact of Christ's victory in history(time) is reason enough to expect the eventual realization ( Mat 13), in the corporate church sense, of that victory in history as well.


However no 'full preterrist' are Post Millennial in that they do not hold to the bodily return of Christ at all.


Clear as mud right?

take care

Hitch

[GrayPilgrim]

Is there a connection between preterism and theonomy? Your last post Hitch just brought this question out so just curious?

[Hitch]

Today @ 05:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
GrayPilgrim:

Is there a connection between preterism and theonomy? Your last post Hitch just brought this question out so just curious? In this particular case the connection is quite strong. ICE also published early works of DeMar, Bahnsen , Sutton, Jordan and Chilton's direct answer to Siders ' Rich Christians In and Age of Hunger ; Productive Christians in An age of Guilt Manipulators 1981.

Take care

Hitch

[GrayPilgrim]

Are the two positions a package deal? That is do you inevitably end up with the other if you accept one? That is if say I am a thenomist will I generally end up a preterist and vice versa?

GP

[John Reece]

Today @ 04:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
GrayPilgrim:

Are the two positions a package deal? That is do you inevitably end up with the other if you accept one? That is if say I am a theonomist will I generally end up a preterist and vice versa?

GP

I would say, No.

Of all the teachers and writers I have read who are theonomists, all are also preterists.

But most of the preterists I know are not theonomists.

[Hitch]

Today @ 04:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
GrayPilgrim:

Are the two positions a package deal? That is do you inevitably end up with the other if you accept one? That is if say I am a thenomist will I generally end up a preterist and vice versa?

GP Well I reckon its common, obviously those I included are those I'm familiar with, but not inevitable.

But there are some interesting sounds out there in DF land. As the 'Dispensations' become less and less defensible (there is always somebody asking for NT support and/or other embarassing questions) the once absolute of 'no continuity' has passed into blurry history along with the once fine edges of the dispensations. And Theonomy is what is going to fill the void. The only real alternative is humanism.

All christians are by definition preterist. We all do and must believe prophecy has been fulfilled. So preterist outlooks are a matter of degree. I reckon its close that way with Theonomy as well. Even JV McGee would would complain if his gas bill of $2.00 @ gallon only netted .9 of a gallon. This is a crime in the US and rightly so. It is also a reflection of and finds is basis in Levitical Law. No one would have ever accused ol JV of being a Theonomist. But even he would have applied a little Levitical brass polish to this particular.

Im always amazed at believers who wince at the very mention of the term. It is nothing more than the common sense appplication of revealed God inspired specifics of right and wrong, formalized into a theological outlook. Its only obvious that the best possible outline should lead to the best possible report. And the overall negative view of the Law descended from 5 generations of DF thinkers , in the US,has led directly to a prime example of the failure which follows such a low view of the Scriptures;

It begins the slide that will set Df thinking where it belongs forever. We all know the 1973 Roe vs Wade descision. What many of us dont know is the Wade is the name of the DA of Dallas County Texas and of course Dallas is the home of the worlds largest DF seminary. Below I have included all the published works from DTS faculty in support of the fatherless preborn, as of 1973.


Short list eh?

Roe was unopposed ,at least ,as far as the greatest of DF seminaries was concerned.

Humanism is deadly even with a good dose of SBC dunking.

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

Today @ 04:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
John Reece:

I would say, No.

Of all the teachers and writers I have read who are theonomists, all are also preterists.

But most of the preterists I know are not theonomists. No doubt thats true John to a point. I would bet 99 of 100 of the nontheonomic preterists you know would ,if given the choice, prefer private property rights over socialism. If thats correct they areTheonomists ,at least to a degree, by default.

take care

Hitch

[John Reece]

Hitch,

I would bet 99 of 100 of the nontheonomic preterists you know would ,if given the choice, prefer private property rights over socialism. If thats correct they areTheonomists.

I like your definitions, in terms of which I am both a preterist and a theonomist.

Thanks for curing my identity crisis :smile: .

[John Reece]

04-02-2003 @ 04:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
quetzalphoenix:

I just finished working through NT Wright's "Jesus and the Victory of God" (phew!!) I have to confess that I feel out of my league, but as I was reading his definition of Jesus' role as an eschatological prophet, I kept getting vibes of preterism.

The kingdom and the new world order are brought into existence at the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple...the eschatological language of Jesus is not pointing to the end of the 'space-time world' but is a representation of sociological reality...not a metaphysical one.

Am I wrong? Is someone out there with a better grasp of Wright (and preterism) able to give me a fuller understanding of his view of the inaguration of the kingdom and the "end times"? Is this it, or are we to expect a bodily second coming? (he seems to poo-poo the idea of Jesus as a 'transcendental being' coming on literal clouds of glory...)

Thanks!

Thanks for starting this thread.

My copy of Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God had been on the bookshelf so long I had forgotten it.

Browsing the highlighted and underlined comments therein is quite refreshing and stimulating.

Preterist indeed!

[Arminian]

Preterist indeed!

Just got his latest book last month. Hot off the press! :read: :yipee:

[John Reece]

Today @ 10:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Arminian:

Just got his latest book last month. Hot off the press! :read: :yipee:

Arminian,

Wright's dilute books-for-the-popular-press have disappointed me, so I have not been keeping up with his publications.

Are you referring to the long-awaited sequel to Jesus and the Victory of God?

If so, please give the title of it.

I have been unable to find a new publication by Wright at Amazon.com.

I eagerly await your reply.

[Arminian]

John,

Wright's dilute books-for-the-popular-press have disappointed me, so I have not been keeping up with his publications.

Yes, those particular books would be disappointing because of the audience they are intended for.

Are you referring to the long-awaited sequel to Jesus and the Victory of God?

If so, please give the title of it.

The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the question of God, vol. 3 I got my copy for free, so I don't know the cost.

I have been unable to find a new publication by Wright at Amazon.com.

It should be available for the general public this week (last Monday) or next. I can't remember the date of the release.

[John Reece]

Thanks, Arminian.

I've found it on, and ordered it from, Amazon.com.

Blessings,

John

[Arminian]

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BR/br801wright.html

[John Reece]

Today @ 06:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71006#post71006)
Arminian:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BR/br801wright.html

Thanks!

I had been wondering what Wright might have to say on that subject.

:thumb:

[Darth Xena]

Very interesting, thank you.

[jpholding]

Wright offers ideas that gel with preterism. Whether he would call himself that or if he even knows there are people out there with such a position is not obvious.

Send me that copy of Book 3 or I'll squeeze the water out of you, Spongebob. This is a stickup! :fight:

[Arminian]

jp,

Send me that copy of Book 3 or I'll squeeze the water out of you, Spongebob. This is a stickup!

I'm happy to announce that the initial release includes a paperback as well.

Here are some things to read while you save up the money. Of course, Wright has so many opinions that he's bound to rub any given person the wrong way on at least one issue. He sort of holds to a form of baptismal regeneration (emphasis on "sort of") which he has not written about, and his Calvinism certianly rubs me the wrong way. On the other hand, his understanding of Romans 7 (among other issues) is so outstanding that I'd have to say that it is second only to mine. The first two links below are the most important (the second more than the first):

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/wright.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/Shape.html


http://www.northpark.edu/sem/exauditu/papers/wright.html

http://www.bruderhof.com/articles/ANewWorld.htm?format=print

http://a.rn11.com/yh/pu/yhgeouspu.htm

http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=17

http://www.bruderhof.com/articles/ANewWorld.htm?format=print

http://www.geocities.com/gfmivcf/resurrection.html

http://www.geocities.com/gfmivcf/wright_resurrection2.html

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 07:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71810#post71810)
Arminian:

jp,



I'm happy to announce that the initial release includes a paperback as well.

Here are some things to read while you save up the money. Of course, Wright has so many opinions that he's bound to rub any given person the wrong way on at least one issue. He sort of holds to a form of baptismal regeneration (emphasis on "sort of") which he has not written about, and his Calvinism certianly rubs me the wrong way. On the other hand, his understanding of Romans 7 (among other issues) is so outstanding that I'd have to say that it is second only to mine. The first two links below are the most important (the second more than the first):

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/wright.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/Shape.html


http://www.northpark.edu/sem/exauditu/papers/wright.html

http://www.bruderhof.com/articles/ANewWorld.htm?format=print

http://a.rn11.com/yh/pu/yhgeouspu.htm

http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=17

http://www.bruderhof.com/articles/ANewWorld.htm?format=print

http://www.geocities.com/gfmivcf/resurrection.html

http://www.geocities.com/gfmivcf/wright_resurrection2.html

Jake,

Do you really know Wright? That is awesome if you do! I love his books I am about half way through New Testament and the People of God He makes the liberals eat their own words any way thanks for the helpful resources.

God Bless,
Blake

[Darth Xena]

I just starting leafing though Jesus and the Victory of God. Wow.

[John Reece]

Wow

Yea.

:smile:

[quetzalphoenix]

I just checked this out...thanks for posting it...

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BR/br801wright.html

I guess what concerns me about Wright is how he seems to pick and choose what metaphors get to have more than one referent.

"The parables about a returning king or master (for example, Luke 19:11–27) were originally about God returning to Jerusalem, not about Jesus returning to earth. This, Jesus seemed to believe, was an event within space-time history, not one that would end it forever."

Does this mean that these parables cannot refer to both? Also, the "end of space time history" which he continually debunks during JaTVG is not the only understanding of the second coming. I think he has some good correctives to ethereal, otherworldly understandings of "heaven" and the "resurrection."

But what does he mean here:

"The New Testament, building on ancient biblical prophecy, envisages that the creator God will remake heaven and earth entirely, affirming the goodness of the old Creation but overcoming its mortality and corruptibility (e.g., Romans 8:18–27; Revelation 21:1; Isaiah 65:17, 66:22). When that happens, Jesus will appear within the resulting new world (e.g., Colossians 3:4; 1 John 3:2)."

Couldn't this be the Second Coming? What does it mean to say "within" the resulting new world?

He seems to turn around and affirm what I ordinarily picture in a following paragraph...

"Paul's image of the people "meeting the Lord in the air" should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world."

I suppose my frustration is in his ambiguity, which annoyed me as I was reading JaTVG. From that book, I would question whether he holds to Jesus as God in an orthodox sense, but I have heard that he does.

Thanks for the posts and links, everyone!!

[Arminian]

Blake,

Do you really know Wright? That is awesome if you do! I love his books I am about half way through New Testament and the People of God He makes the liberals eat their own words any way thanks for the helpful resources.

I do know him, but I wouldn't say we are friends. I am friends, however, with a number of the other NP (New Perspective) theologians. I know more about him than he has put into writing becasue I go to hear him speak whenever I have the opportunity. I also used to write him before he changed jobs.

[Hitch]

Couldn't this be the Second Coming? What does it mean to say "within" the resulting new world?

I dont think so Tim....

Heb 9:26
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
(KJV)


Take care

H