Jin-Roh On Evangelicalism, Preterism, And Hermeneutics

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I am defining preterism as the eschatalogical (endtime) theory that biblical prophecy saw most or all of its fulfillment in and around 70 AD, namely during the sack of Jerusalem by Rome.

Preterism is heresy. By that I do not mean that it is dangerous to "the church" or to any earthly institution. I mean that it is an impediment to the knowledge of God and his Christ--which alone can save.

Oh please... the "h"-word hardly earns you credibility if you can't back it up with a better definition that what you just described.

Preterism is ignorant, arrogant, insufficient, conceited, unspiritual, worldly, reactionary, conciliatory, inconsistent, having a form of godliness while denying its power, illogical and above all false.

A belief in preterism inevitably leads to excessive allegorizing of the Bible which leads to a laxity in heeding the Bible which leads to a careless Christian walk and witness.

One of the reasons why I am a preterist is that preterists can describe their own methods and the methods of futurists. This means they have some way to arbitrate between both. It is like knowing Italian and Spanish. Only then can you look at book written in one of those languages and identify which once best makes sense in order to translate into English.

Futurists, on the other hand, do not seem to be able to understand what preterist do. Your statement is evidence to that.

It is also a highly cerebral eschatalogical system (as compared to certain Left Behind strains of futurism) which "puffeth up" its adherents.

I swear, evangelicalism is the only demographic I know of where being less well read, having lower intelligence is actually what gets you credibility.

Hey Darfius, if I found some semi-literate preacher with an IQ of 85, who spoke in double negatives and endorsed preterism, would you think it is a better view then?

Besides, it is hardly cerebral. Any preterist (especially those who lean towards idealism) can tell you the eschatology has plenty of ways to motivate action.

And if you understood preterism, you'd probably understand that too.

After ignoring much of Romans, some of Thessalonians, half of Daniel and the entire book of Revelation, the preterist is left grossly unprepared spiritually and practically for the battle against enemies who are not "flesh and blood", not watchful for the imminent return of the Master and having only the mangled remains of those parts of Scripture they don't ignore.

Biblical prophecy serves two important functions, among others. It validates the Bible as God's word and it is God's way of "not doing anything without letting His servants know." Preterists would have us believe that for 2,000 years and possibly far more, God has kept and will continue to keep us in the dark, except possibly with the nebulous expectation that one day Christ will return, but probably not until we've lived out a happy 70 or 80 years and done our small part to help make the world the paradise it is destined to become now that Christianity is conquering. They also undermine the persuasiveness of prophecy by undermining its literal fulfillment. Christ "came", but not in the way people normally come to places. But perhaps most grievously, they claim that God's gifts and calls are not irrevocable and that the Jews are not loved on account of the patriarchs. If the Jews could not trust God, then neither can the Gentiles.

I will now take a look at a few "prooftexts" for preterism and see whether it truly does stand on any solid ground.

I have a better idea. Why don't just explain your hermeneutic? I had a big thread about that awhile ago, and every futurist that answered it thought that the act of interpreting was the same a explaining the method of interpretation.

Very well said.

[Jin-Roh]

Thanks Phoenix. That makes me glad.