Preterism Is Dangerous

[Jin-Roh]

We're disussing the history of doctrines. Preterism started as a way to counter the Reformation.

Who cares?

It doesn't come from Jesus or the apostles.

Such a statement is a kind of a tautoligical way of saying "this position is wrong." What anyone argues for when they argue for the "correct" doctrine, they of course mean that it came from Jesus and the Apostle.

If it did we would find it among the church fathers, or in the Catena Aurea, which is a thirteenth century summary of commentary on the Gospels from the first twelve centuries of Christianity.

While I am fairly conservative, I do not believe that the theology of the middle ages was infallible. I do not, for instance take the "four senses" of scripture as authoritative.

Not a trace of it there. It didn't start as a true doctrine, but as a means of deception. That's what it remains.

It is only a deception if it is also false, eschaton. Whether or not preterism is false depends on its own merits, not its origins. I don't think I've heard a preterist argue for preterism "because the Jesuits said so." They argue for preterism based on a certain hermenutic -one that takes into account historical context, cultural idioms, recurring phrases in the Bible, the political situation during 1st century, etc etc.

It is as if your trying to play "identity theology" as people play "identity politics." I.E. "reject this ideas because it comes from the democrats, white-people, the Jesuits or [insert boogyman here]." This simply doesn't matter.

For instance, do I as a mainline protestant reject the Book of Mormon because it comes from the founder of Mormonism? Stickly speaking, no. I reject the BOM because there are good reasons to believe it wasn't written by lost tribes of Israel who got to the new world somehow. Do I reject dispensationalism because it started in the 19th century, by a few people who snubbed conservative, learned, protestants in that time? While I think that it is important to point out, still no. I reject dispensationalism because its hermenutic reads scripture anachronistically, and seems doublely ignorant things like genre, cultural context, idioms, hyperbole and so on.

Or how about this: Marcus Borg does not believe that God works miracles, like a physical Resurrection of Jesus. Yet I do and consider it an essential for faith. However, Borg also might say that Jesus had a more inclusive view towards women, Samaritans, Romans, and other "untouchables" than his contemporaries. So should every Christian (along with a lot of other things Borg does not) reject this interpretation? I would hope not. Borg's view on this matter depends on his arguments for them on that matter. The fact that Borg is a "protestant liberal" doesn't affect that.

Preterism likewise stands on the arguments given for it. The motivations of the Jesuits are irrelevant. You're the only one here spooked by the boogeymen.

[eschaton]

Who cares?



Such a statement is a kind of a tautoligical way of saying "this position is wrong." What anyone argues for when they argue for the "correct" doctrine, they of course mean that it came from Jesus and the Apostle.



While I am fairly conservative, I do not believe that the theology of the middle ages was infallible. I do not, for instance take the "four senses" of scripture as authoritative.



It is only a deception if it is also false, eschaton. Whether or not preterism is false depends on its own merits, not its origins. I don't think I've heard a preterist argue for preterism "because the Jesuits said so." They argue for preterism based on a certain hermenutic -one that takes into account historical context, cultural idioms, recurring phrases in the Bible, the political situation during 1st century, etc etc.

It is as if your trying to play "identity theology" as people play "identity politics." I.E. "reject this ideas because it comes from the democrats, white-people, the Jesuits or [insert boogyman here]." This simply doesn't matter.

For instance, do I as a mainline protestant reject the Book of Mormon because it comes from the founder of Mormonism? Stickly speaking, no. I reject the BOM because there are good reasons to believe it wasn't written by lost tribes of Israel who got to the new world somehow. Do I reject dispensationalism because it started in the 19th century, by a few people who snubbed conservative, learned, protestants in that time? While I think that it is important to point out, still no. I reject dispensationalism because its hermenutic reads scripture anachronistically, and seems doublely ignorant things like genre, cultural context, idioms, hyperbole and so on.

Or how about this: Marcus Borg does not believe that God works miracles, like a physical Resurrection of Jesus. Yet I do and consider it an essential for faith. However, Borg also might say that Jesus had a more inclusive view towards women, Samaritans, Romans, and other "untouchables" than his contemporaries. So should every Christian (along with a lot of other things Borg does not) reject this interpretation? I would hope not. Borg's view on this matter depends on his arguments for them on that matter. The fact that Borg is a "protestant liberal" doesn't affect that.

Preterism likewise stands on the arguments given for it. The motivations of the Jesuits are irrelevant. You're the only one here spooked by the boogeymen.

I think your first statement describes your position best. Preterism is false because it isn't biblical.

[eschaton]

Jin-roh,

I think your first statement describes your position best. In my view preterism is false because it isn't biblical. It is based on what the church fathers called the "Jewish error." Paul called it blindness because it is going by the letter rather than the Spirit. That's the same reason the Jews didn't recognize who Jesus was.

The title of this thread is "Preterism Is Dangerous." I think it is because it is false doctrine that leads to atheism, but I know many here disagree with that. If you would like to discuss the merits or preterism with me I am willing to do so. I think we should start a different thread named something like "Is preterism true?" I don't think we have to present books and books of data that is probably irrelevant. We can probably hit five or six major points. The first thing we should do is define exactly what preterism is. I really doubt that either one of us can convince the other, but it might make an interesting discussion. You can start the thread or I can.

Sorry for the double posting. Had computer problems.

[eschaton]

eschaton,

You are correct there are many places in scripture that scripture should be read in the spirit. But if we use past fulfilled prophecy as our guide can find many cases where a literal interpretation came true. Then there are other fulfilled prophecies where it is unclear. Such is scripture. I try and use the literal unless I find by context or content that I should not.

The problem I see with preterism is it goes to far in their focus of 70 AD. Even if they thought that 70 AD was a major event they should realize that scripture is filled with patterns and types. So the destruction of Jerusalem may be important but to declare an end to fulfilled prophecy is a stretch.

I think you are talking about hyper-preterism. That isn't even allowed for discussion in this forum. Although hyper-preterism is heretical, it is probably more consistent in its interpretation than the other kind. I don't agree much with either one.

[franktalk]

I think you are talking about hyper-preterism. That isn't even allowed for discussion in this forum. Although hyper-preterism is heretical, it is probably more consistent in its interpretation than the other kind. I don't agree much with either one.

There is a danger in misreading prophecy. The Jews did not accept the clear prophecy of the coming of Christ. They knew to the day when He would arrive. They were judged because they missed "thy day". Can we be any different? What is in current prophecy that we should be aware of and be on the lookout for. For one thing the Bible says that those who bless Israel will be blessed. But many modern churches have replacement theology so there is no longer a blessing on Israel. And what of the curse? If we actively oppose Israel do we indeed receive a curse? I think we do. So the danger in prophecy goes beyond preterism. It goes to the heart of scripture.

[Jin-Roh]

Jin-roh,

I think your first statement describes your position best. In my view preterism is false because it isn't biblical.

well at least this discussion ends with us agreeing on that.

It is based on what the church fathers called the "Jewish error." Paul called it blindness because it is going by the letter rather than the Spirit. That's the same reason the Jews didn't recognize who Jesus was.

The title of this thread is "Preterism Is Dangerous." I think it is because it is false doctrine that leads to atheism, but I know many here disagree with that. If you would like to discuss the merits or preterism with me I am willing to do so. I think we should start a different thread named something like "Is preterism true?" I don't think we have to present books and books of data that is probably irrelevant. We can probably hit five or six major points. The first thing we should do is define exactly what preterism is. I really doubt that either one of us can convince the other, but it might make an interesting discussion. You can start the thread or I can.

That's not bad invitation. I would actually suggest that the discussion be a single major point rather than even five or six. "is preterism true" is far to broad.

Despite that I have to decline for a number of reasons. I live in Korea right now and I don't have access to my books at home nor am anywhere near a university library. Additionally, I seriously doubt that I'd be willing to put the time commitment into a tweb debate or whatever. I am sure such a discussion would be edifying for both us as well as audience, but I'd rather concentrate on life outside of ideas and the internet this summer.

Sorry for the double posting. Had computer problems.

I don't think it was you. I think it was Tweb.

[TyRockwell]

Everyone,

Both sides of this school-yard rumble are throwing rocks at each other from opposite sides of a barn and neither can hit the broad side of it.

The preterists, when they see the logical conclusion of their position, jump backwards and say, "No, we are not hyper preterists, we are partial preterists!" There they are stuck, waiting on the 2nd Coming.

The Dispensational Futurists (DF) are, according to what they think about the book of Daniel, are still waiting on the FIRST Coming of Jesus, because it is in the book, but they fail to see it. All the visions and dreams and visitations Daniel received include ancient Rome in them, but DFs don't see ancient Rome in Daniel chapters 11 and 12. This is why they don't see Jesus' life in ancient Rome in Daniel: They don't know the temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt already. It was torn down when Daniel was taken captive to Babylon. It was rebuilt by the Jews after their return from Babylon around 500 BC.

This is the rebuilding foretold in Daniel 9:26. "The people" of ancient Rome tore it down, as Jesus decreed, fullfilling Daniel 9:26, when he said, "Behold, your house is left to you desolate." That it happened in 70 AD is of no consequence. It happened because "desolations are decreed" by Jesus (Dan. 9:26) and that destruction in 70 AD was the same thing as the abomination of desolation, and "the end that is decreed, poured out on the desolated, [temple]" in Dan. 9:27.

You (DFs) ask, "What of the man of sin entering the temple?"
Answer: delegated authority. Just as Jesus delegated authority to the Church (Matt. 28:18-19), Caesar delegated authority to Titus, his general, his representative, to enter the temple while it was under attack in 70 AD. As Caesars delegated ambassador, Caesar the Antichrist, entered the temple when Titus entered the temple and desecrated it in 70 AD. So, the abominated, desolated, and desecrated temple was torn down in 70 AD, according to Daniel's prophecy, and it doesn't have to happen again. Jesus life, and That event fulfilled the '70th week' of Daniel.

BOTH SIDES, Preterist and DF, are stuck, waiting for the 2nd Coming of Christ.

You, both sides, ask: "When will that be?"
Answer: Not until God makes all Christ's enemies a footstool for his [Christ's] feet. (Psalm 110:1, and all through the New Testament)

You ask: "How will God do that?"
Answer: Through the Church, Jesus bride, fulfilling its role, to "Bind on earth that which is bound in [God's] heaven." Matthew 16:18-19
Meaning principalities and powers of darkness, and spiritual forces of evil in the [earth's] heavens, (the skies). Eph. 6:10-18

You ask: "How can we do that? It would take the miraculous power of God?"
Answer: "You will be endued with power from on high when the Holy Spirit comes UPON you," [not just IN you].

You ask: "Wasn't that power just for the 'early church?'
Answer: No, it just fell out of use, because of doctrines of men, in non-faith churches like yours that "explain it away."

You ask: Does that mean we have to become like "little jesus-es" like in Word of Faith churches?
Answer: Be at least like Peter, and like Paul, who said, "I labor... til Christ be formed in you."

Now, I ask, please, can we move forward, and get ON with it?

Thank you,
TyRockwell

[eschaton]

Get on with what? You mean get on with making false prophecies?

[franktalk]

Ty,

I have to tell you that I enjoy your passion for your view of scripture. I think you are wrong but I still admire the feelings.

[TyRockwell]

Get on with what? You mean get on with making false prophecies?

Get on with making all Christ's enemies a footstool for his feet, through the enduement of power from on High, by the Holy Spirit.

[eschaton]

Get on with making all Christ's enemies a footstool for his feet, through the enduement of power from on High, by the Holy Spirit.

Is that the same spirit that inspired you to prophesy falsely?

[TyRockwell]

Is that the same spirit that inspired you to prophesy falsely?

Stick to the subject, preterism, dangerous or not, a matter of eschatology. You're out of line, bringing your interpretation on another topic into this discussion.

What Spirit endued the 120 in the Upper Room, on the Day of Pentecost? And isn't He the same Spirit of power, and of love and a sound mind, today?

[franktalk]

Stick to the subject, preterism, dangerous or not, a matter of eschatology. You're out of line, bringing your interpretation on another topic into this discussion.

What Spirit endued the 120 in the Upper Room, on the Day of Pentecost? And isn't He the same Spirit of power, and of love and a sound mind, today?

I will jump in here.

If Preterism is a false interpretation of scripture which I think it is then the danger is in not looking for the real prophecy.

If we try and conquer the world using the power of the Spirit just what does that look like? Is that love or is that like the Jews wiping out cities as they took the promised land. Some will say the latter. Are you looking for a Holy war? A war in which billions die instead of millions?

[TyRockwell]

I will jump in here.

If Preterism is a false interpretation of scripture which I think it is then the danger is in not looking for the real prophecy

There have been numerous theories and interpretations of prophecies over many years. The fact is, that the so-called 'danger' is not one theory over another. Dispensational Futurism is just as dangerous as Preterism, or any other theory, because it misses the point of what the Church should be doing to fulfill its role as revealed not only in eschatological scripture, but in scripture as a whole plan of God.

If we try and conquer the world using the power of the Spirit just what does that look like? Is that love or is that like the Jews wiping out cities as they took the promised land. Some will say the latter. Are you looking for a Holy war? A war in which billions die instead of millions?

I don't mean to ridicule, but I do find the question humorous, in that anyone would think such an idea has been expressed, by myself, or any other interpreter of scripture.
No. Spiritual warfare is not conducted as a physical, temporal warfare, as in the concept of men killing men. Notwithstanding, a case such as Peter speaking to Ananias and Saphira, and they fell dead, immediately. It could happen, but it isn't the intent of spiritual warfare as described in the Bible by Jesus or any other writers of the Bible. It entails Binding, in the sense of rendering powerless or ineffective, the works of darkness, mostly regarding evil spirit principalities and powers, and demons and their practices.

Just to add, Paul describes who and what "we wrestle" and clearly states, "not flesh and blood."

As an aside: Can someone tell me how to get the notification to me changed to "instant," instead
of "weekly? I have looked, but have not found that important function, and have not been notified in email when a post or reply has been made to a thread to which I have subscribed. Thank you, this information will be helpful.

Thanks, again.

[eschaton]

Stick to the subject, preterism, dangerous or not, a matter of eschatology. You're out of line, bringing your interpretation on another topic into this discussion.

What Spirit endued the 120 in the Upper Room, on the Day of Pentecost? And isn't He the same Spirit of power, and of love and a sound mind, today?

Why should anyone listen to a false prophet? False prophets are false teachers. That's what you appear to be. I've said that for a long time. If anybody wants to believe what is wrong they should listen to you.