PRETERISM: a thread for jo7241974

[John T]

Jo, here it is, a special thread whereby you can ask questions about preterism, and learn from others. (See, I am really not a meanie!)

This is the first section of an article en totality from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism. All I ask is that this forms the basis of discussion, and the basic definition of what preterism is actually.

Preterism is an interpretation of Christian eschatology which holds that most or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the End Times refer to events which have already happened in the 1st century after Christ's birth. The system also claims that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is listed in Webster's 1913 dictionary as a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond," signifying that either all or a majority of Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. Adherents of Preterism are commonly known as Preterists.

Proponents of Preterism sometimes argue that this position was the original eschatological understanding of the Early Christian church,[1][2] a claim contested by Historicists.[3] One Preterist has been said to hold that the view was developed in the 17th century,[4] a view also held by many non-Preterists.[5][6][7]

There has historically been general agreement that the first systematic Preterist exposition of prophecy was written by the Jesuit Luis De Alcasar during the Counter Reformation.[8][9] Moses Stuart noted that Alcasar's Preterist interpretation was of considerable benefit to the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants,[10] and Preterism has been described in modern eschatological commentary as a Catholic defense against the Protestant Historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.[11]

Due to resistance by Protestant Historicists, the Preterist view was slow to gain acceptance outside the Roman Catholic Church.[12] Among Protestants it was first accepted by Hugo Grotius,[13][14] a Dutch Protestant eager to establish common ground between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church.[15] His first attempt to do this was entitled ‘Commentary on Certain Texts Which Deal with Antichrist’ (1640), in which he attempted to argue that the texts relating to Antichrist had their fulfillment in the 1st century AD. This was not well received by Protestants,[16] but Grotius was undeterred and in his next work ‘Commentaries On The New Testament' (1641-1650), he expanded his Preterist views to include the Olivet prophecy and Revelation.

Preterism still struggled to gain credibility within other Protestant countries, especially England.[17] The English commentator Thomas Hayne claimed that the prophecies of the Book of Daniel had all been fulfilled by the 1st century (‘Christs Kingdom on Earth’, 1645), and Joseph Hall expressed the same conclusion concerning Daniel’s prophecies (‘The Revelation Unrevealed’, 1650), but neither of them applied their Preterist views to Revelation. However, the exposition of Grotius convinced the Englishman Henry Hammond. Hammond sympathized with Grotius’ desire for unity among Christians, and found his Preterist exposition useful to this end.[18] Hammond wrote his own Preterist exposition in 1653, borrowing extensively from Grotius. In his introduction to Revelation he claimed that others had independently arrived at similar conclusions as himself, though he gives pride of place to Grotius.[19] Hammond was Grotius’ only notable Protestant convert, and despite his reputation and influence, Grotius’ interpretation of Revelation was overwhelmingly rejected by Protestants and gained no ground for at least 100 years.[20][21][22]

By the end of the 18th century Preterist exposition had gradually become more widespread. The first Full Preterist exposition was finally written in 1730 by the Swiss Protestant and Arian, Firmin Abauzit (‘Essai sur l'Apocalypse’).[23] This was part of a growing development of more systematic Preterist expositions of Revelation.[24] Later, though, it appears that Abauzit recanted this approach after a critical examination by his English translator, Dr. Twells.[25]

The earliest American Full Preterist work was 'The Second Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ: A Past Event', which was written in 1845 by Robert Townley. Townley later recanted this view.[26]

[jo7241974]

I can see the title of this thread; however, because I have you on my ignore list, I have long been unable to read the contents of your posts. Likewise, I am unable to read the contents of your OP. Sorry.

jo

[Bill the Cat]

Well, here is where I can tell you why you are wrong on Preterism and why Futurism/Preterism is different from Christianity/Mormonism IRT prophecy.

[Bill the Cat]

This is correct; however, Christ taught signs for us to watch for. Connected to those signs are some pretty specific "time" frames.

You mean like "this generation" and "soon"?

We could consider the prophecy, for instance, which Daniel made about Christ's arrival in Jerusalem. I don't know if you have given any serious study to that prophecy.

I have. I also have studied the dating of Daniel.

Yet, to the very exact day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem riding the donkey, Daniel's prophecy was fulfilled.

Really? I'd like to see a source for that claim.

And Jesus wept because His own people did not recognize that He was fulfilling that prophecy. The people had received that prophecy in plenty of time to have figured it out. The Jews were punished (but also protected) as a result of not recognizing the fulfillment of that prophecy - God blinded them. Wow, that is something I just realized as I was typing this response just now; i.e., Daniel is the same Prophet who prophesied both of the prophesies I am now referring to. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that if the prophecy, ALSO made by Daniel, about the abomination of desolation has taken place, I think that the precedent for specific time frames concerning Daniel's prophesies, has been well established by Jesus Himself.

I agree. However, the Preterist interpretation of Daniel's prophecies are just as consistent WRT the time frames set up by Jesus.

It is the prophecy of the abomination of desolation - upon which preterism rests and claims has already been fulfilled. Therefore, I would offer that those who hang their hats on preterism, take a good look at what happened to the Jews as of result of their getting the fulfillment of another one of Daniel's prophesies wrong. IOW, the specific time frame for what was to occur after the abomination of desolation takes place has already passed if the preterists had been correct in their interpretation of the fulfillment of that prophecy. Likewise, orthodox believers should be aware of the effects of what the preterist believes, and what they really look like. It does not appear to me that they are paying attention; otherwise, if they were truly applying the standards they say they believe in, they would consider preterism a heresy as well...and not just consider hyper-preterism as a heresy.

How so? If the AOD has already happened, and we are in fact in the reign of Christ (Which Ephesians 2:6 seems to indicate), then what do you think is the problem?

All I am pointing to is the inconsistency of how orthodox believers apply their own standards of belief not only to those they accept in their orthodox club of saved souls, but also to the beliefs of others outside of their walls.

No, you are misrepresenting their and our positions through ignorance.

Now, preterists believe that the abomination of desolation has already taken place (hyper-preterism holds to additional beliefs than only the fulfillment of the prophecy about the abomination of desolation). Since this absolutely impacts the Revelation of John, I would remind you of the following which appears in Revelation:

Rev 22:19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Preterists do not take away any words of the prophecy in Revelation. They interpret it differently. Prophecy and commandments are totally different things. The Preterist interpretation of prophecy does not change the nature of Jesus.

To be more specific, John did not receive this Revelation until AFTER the time had already passed during which time preterists claim the abomination of desolation had already taken place.

Debatable. Dr. Kenneth Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation", places Revelation before 70 AD.

Thus, preterism specifically is TAKING AWAY from the words of the book of this prophecy.

No they are not. They leave all of the words intact. They do not remove portions of the scripture. This is you twisting the warnings of scripture again to further your anti-orthodoxy agenda. Show us what part Preterism "takes away". Bet you can't!

Therefore, they are in danger, as "God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

In my eyes, this is pretty serious stuff. It is NOT just the inconsequential speculation of the fulfillment of end times prophecy which posters to my question have made. In fact, as I have shown, there is a very specific consequence recorded in Revelation concerning this matter. Therefore, I present my comments as a warning to Christendom; not only to the preterist himself, but also to orthodox believers who judge by the standards they have created who will also be judged by those same standards they have meted out.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Who are you, and where is Bill?

More seriously, let me first say right up front Jo, I like you. You and I are tight as chicks. As long as we are straight on that and know that theology is separate from that, 'kay.

Okay, gloves off. You CANT be serious. You change the very nature of Christ and are claiming that preterists (the non-hyper variety) are in danger of hellfire?

I just had surgery so I can't laugh or I would bust my stitches. I haven't almost laughed that hard on this subject since (excluding Troy and my quest to find out why he hates fat people)

[Bill the Cat]

Who are you, and where is Bill?

Not bad for a futurist, huh?

[Sparko]

Hey Dizzle, can you please explain to Jo the difference between preterism and hyperpreterism in simple terms? She has been arguing how preterism is unorthodox, but she has been basically arguing against hypers. I tried to get her to contact you directly to get the real scoop, but she never did. So if you could give her a simple explanation here, it might go far to straighten her out. Or not.

[John T]

Hey Dizzle, can you please explain to Jo the difference between preterism and hyperpreterism in simple terms? She has been arguing how preterism is unorthodox, but she has been basically arguing against hypers. I tried to get her to contact you directly to get the real scoop, but she never did. So if you could give her a simple explanation here, it might go far to straighten her out. Or not.

I feel devastated because Jo will not post on the thread I created solely for her, and for which I have no opinion of significance.

Should I go somewhere and cry?

[Sparko]

I feel devastated because Jo will not post on the thread I created solely for her, and for which I have no opinion of significance.

Should I go somewhere and cry?

with joy.

[OtherCheek]

Should I go somewhere and cry?

If it helps, then sure.

So, I have a question. What do Preterists believe about the gathering of Israel in the last days? Has this happened already, or not? See Isaiah 11:10-16

Is the establishment of the modern State of Israel prophetically significant or not?

[John T]

with joy.

Is she a newbie here?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Dizzle, can you please explain to Jo the difference between preterism and hyperpreterism in simple terms? She has been arguing how preterism is unorthodox, but she has been basically arguing against hypers. I tried to get her to contact you directly to get the real scoop, but she never did. So if you could give her a simple explanation here, it might go far to straighten her out. Or not.

I don't care to do someone's research for them. If she has the testicular fortitude to speak so strongly, let her bring the goods.

[Dee Dee Warren]

If it helps, then sure.

So, I have a question. What do Preterists believe about the gathering of Israel in the last days? Has this happened already, or not? See Isaiah 11:10-16

There are divergent views. Most would say (as I would) that is a present reality. Others (such as Chris Date - a guest on my podcast and at the PreteristBlog, would disagree).

Is the establishment of the modern State of Israel prophetically significant or not?

Only in that it shows that many antichrists come and go.

(before anyone gets their undies in a wad, the modern State of Israel is secular to the core, many of the leaders and worldviews being atheist-- and they absolutely deny Christ, which is what John defines as "antichrist." The USA also has the spirit of antichrist.)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Not bad for a futurist, huh?

I think you are wavering O Feline.

[OtherCheek]

There are divergent views. Most would say (as I would) that is a present reality. Others (such as Chris Date - a guest on my podcast and at the PreteristBlog, would disagree).

Thanks dizzle.

Only in that it shows that many antichrists come and go.

(before anyone gets their undies in a wad, the modern State of Israel is secular to the core, many of the leaders and worldviews being atheist-- and they absolutely deny Christ, which is what John defines as "antichrist." The USA also has the spirit of antichrist.)

Secular or not, are the Jews not gathering to their lands? And is this present day PHYSICAL gathering prophetically significant, in your opinion?

thanks.