To Ken: Tertullian

[Dee Dee Warren]

Tim - thank you for both your edited reply and your acquiencense to the colour request. I have a dear friend here Cherith who uses the same reddish font and I struggle mightily to read her posts at times and we agree on 80 percent of things (she is a Calvinist though, one can't be perfect).

You mentioned Chapter 22 but didn't quote it above. Can you please quote what it is you would like me to comment on?

[Tim C.]

You mentioned Chapter 22 but didn't quote it above. Can you please quote what it is you would like me to comment on?

The underlined portions of the following quote (I'll put it in green):

"Now, forasmuch as the seasons of our entire hope have been fixed in the Holy Scripture, and since we are not permitted to place the accomplishment thereof, as I apprehend, previous to Christ's coming, our prayers are directed towards the end of this world, to the passing away thereof at the great day of the Lord-of His wrath and vengeance-the last day, which is hidden (from all), and known to none but the Father, although announced beforehand by signs and wonders, and the dissolution of the elements, and the conflicts of nations. I would turn out the words of the prophets, if the Lord Himself had said nothing (except that prophecies were the Lord's own word); but it is more to my purpose that He by His own mouth confirms their statement. Being questioned by His disciples when those things were to come to pass which He had just been uttering about the destruction of the temple, He discourses to them first of the order of Jewish events until the overthrow of Jerusalem, and then of such as concerned all nations up to the very end of the world. For after He had declared that 'Jerusalem was to be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled,' -meaning, of course, those which were to be chosen of God, and gathered in with the remnant of Israel-He then goes on to proclaim, against this world and dispensation (even as Joel had done, and Daniel, and all the prophets with one consent), that 'there should be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth.' 'For,' says He, 'the powers of heaven shall be shaken; and then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds, with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh.' He spake of its 'drawing nigh,' not of its being present already; and of 'those things beginning to come to pass,' not of their having happened: because when they have come to pass, then our redemption shall be at hand, which is said to be approaching up to that time, raising and exciting our minds to what is then the proximate harvest of our hope. He immediately annexes a parable of this in 'the trees which are tenderly sprouting into a flower-stalk, and then developing the flower, which is the precursor of the fruit.' So likewise ye,' (He adds), 'when ye shall see all these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand.' 'Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all those things, and to stand before the Son of man;' that is, no doubt, at the resurrection, after all these things have been previously transacted. Therefore, although there is a sprouting in the acknowledgment of all this mystery, yet it is only in the actual presence of the Lord that the flower is developed and the fruit borne. Who is it then, that has aroused the Lord, now at God's right hand so unseasonably and with such severity 'shake terribly' (as Isaiah expresses it) 'that earth,' which, I suppose, is as yet unshattered? Who has thus early put 'Christ's enemies beneath His feet' (to use the language of David), making Him more hurried than the Father, whilst every crowd in our popular assemblies is still with shouts consigning 'the Christians to the lions?' Who has yet beheld Jesus descending from heaven in like manner as the apostles saw Him ascend, according to the appointment of the two angels? Up to the present moment they have not, tribe by tribe, smitten their breasts, looking on Him whom they pierced. No one has as yet fallen in with Elias; no one has as yet escaped from Antichrist; no one has as yet had to bewail the downfall of Babylon. And is there now anybody who has risen again, except the heretic?" - Tertullian, On Resurrection, ch.22 (here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/...#P9676_2650295 )

-Tim

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay the objection has been stated that the “bar” has been set to low to find preteristIC elements in the ECF. I submit it has not, but in fact is the reasonable way to approach the findings and writing of the ECF where it is undisputable that they did not have a coherent systematized eschatology. When looking at the various points of view within orthodox eschatology we find that there is, by definition, certain things that we all hold in common that are FUTURE events which are as follows:



The future bodily return of Christ

The future last judgment

The future bodily resurrection

And by necessary implication the future “end of the world”



All of these things are held by all orthodox Christians so one cannot look at them, and say these are “futurist” doctrines – because that is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand for all preterists in this debate (we are not dealing here with the heretical contingent) believe these things, and are not futurists by theological definition. So it does NOT DO to point to these things in the ECF and declare that they were futurists. I BELIEVE all these things and am NOT a futurist in the way here we are defining theological positions –or even futuristIC (generally speaking). We cannot have a shifting definition but a consistent one that makes sense within the paradigm of which we are actually speaking (for after all from a Jewish paradigm all Christians are preterist in the sense they believe Messiah has already come).



In examining then the question of what is the basic differences between whether or not one is a futurist or one is a preterist – what are they? They are defined as differences in these doctrines:



The timing of the events of the Olivet Discourse

The timing of the events of Daniel 9

The timing of the events of the book of Revelation

The timing of the millennium



ALL preterists hold that the events of the Discourse, at least in great part, are past, including the “coming” that is mentioned in that passage. This is the clear dividing line that makes one a “preterist.” This necessarily includes that the seventy weeks of Daniel are past (this is not unique to preterism – historicism also preterizes this passage for the most part)



MOST preterists believe the events of the Book of Revelation in great part are past. This is not a clear dividing line.



MOST preterists are amill or postmill in which the millennium is loosely described (there are variations) as being NOW or at the minimum as preceding the return of Christ. This is not a clear dividing line, and it is in theory possible to be a premill preterist (though I find it incomprehensible)



Now – there are those, and this is not in dispute in commentaries, who may NOT be a “preterist” primarily speaking, nevertheless take a preteristIC rendering of certain passages – ie they agree with the preterist position on those passages alone, not necessarily the whole paradigm,. For instance a futurist may take a preteristic position on Matthew 10:23 and still remain a futurist. However, it would be legitimate to point to said futurist and show support for a preteristic understanding of Matthew 10:23 even if said futurist did not have preteristic understandings of other passages.



So now as we look at a body of early believers that did not have a systematic eschatology it is perfectly legitimate to point to areas of agreement, and show that there is agreement in certain areas, even if limited, and even if the ultimate position is different. It is also legitimate as is done to point to differences, but these things need to be done with caution and fairness. Indeed, I would point to Fisher’s Rule #6



(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."



I have been very conservative and cautious in what I have said and submit it is my opponents who have not which has raised my ire on more than one occasion. I submit, without trying to raise the rancor level in this thread, that the cock-crowing that has been done has been in direct violation of this rule, and has been without very carefully working through the issues as I presented above.



Now to return to my discourse – there will be exegetes then that may not rightly be called preterists who hold to preteristic interpretation of limited passages. It is right to turn to them for support as long as we don’t claim them for support of the whole system. It is also true even today that preterism is a broad spectrum and one has to take into consideration that orthodox Biblical interpretation both errant and inspired has been one rich with typology and near/not yet paradigms. So while a preterist or even someone who is simply preteristic on certain passages may hold a passage to be past, that does not preclude them from also holding it to be future in some sense. In fact Hank Hanegraaf, The Bible Answer Man, who recently came out of the closet as a preterist himself (though he did not use that term – instead opting for what he calls Exegetical Eschatology – a term which I would not favour as I find terms such as that unfair semantical games in which one’s opposition is declared wrong by definition – so I disapprove of this sort of labeling even by those with whom I agree) in his 9/23/04 program stated it very eloquently in which he said:

“… thus the Great Tribulation instigated by Nero is the antitype for every type and tribulation that follows because we experience the reality of our own resurrection at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ so the Great Tribulation was instigated by Nero, is the archetype and antitype for every type and tribulation until we ourselves experience that reality, that glorious truth of resurrection, when Jesus Christ comes again, an event we all look forward to.”

This principle is found in Scripture very clearly in both typology and double reference.



Now none of what I have said above is unreasonable and it is an even-handed way to evaluate early unsystematized writings. It was never my burden to show that any ECF was a preterist in the modern sense – it is mine to show that some passages that preterists hold to today as past were also held to as past – even if not a perfect match.



Now we can move on to the comments in the thread that has not been addressed above.



Okay I asked Ken why he classified Tertullian as a futurist. In so doing, I was not asserting that Tertullian was not (though I don’t think he is a pure futurist but shows multiple strands of preterist thought), I was trying to determine why Ken thought so and if he had a grasp of what I expounded upon above (and I don’t think Ken does, though now he must as I have explained it). The reason I believe this is because Ken cited where Tertullian pointed to a passage speaking of the end of the world. That alone does not make Tertullian a futurist in the way we are using these terms unless you Ken want to make me a futurist unless you are going to say it is only because he believes in a catacyclismic end of the word – but that does not hold – some preterists believe that (ie Ken Gentry) so that is not a deciding factor that makes one a preterist, and all preterists (remember I do not consider heretics to be preterists any more than I consider Mormon premill to be valid) believe in the future end of the world – so Ken did not prove Tertullian was a futurist. I daresay that in the arguments that Ken advanced on other threads for this supposedly straight or pure futurism of the ECF he continually made this error – pointing to things that all Christians believe is future.



Now to some comments of Tim:

I would agree to an extent. On the other hand, I think the deciding factor is a "return of the Lord in judgment." For example, Rev. John Stevenson at carm thinks the Great Tribulation prophecies were fulfilled at the 70 A.D. events, yet he denies any "return of the Lord" at that time and he emphatically denies that he holds preterist ideas.

A deciding factor would indeed be that to call a person the theological label of preterist, you are correct – but that is not what I am doing – I am pointing to exegetical foundations for preterism – by showing preteristIC interpretations of some major passages. You certainly can’t show any outright dispensationalism anywhere in the ECF, and I seriously doubt you can show even dispensationalIC ideas – that can be another thread, but I do here say that you have an uneven playing field for what you require of others which is a burden you cannot meet. And I would say John Stevenson would be wrong or imprecise if he denied that he does hold preteristic view of the Great Tribulation – this isn’t a matter of personal opinion – it is a matter of theological definition. I also think you are not being fair in your use of “return of the Lord” because in your use you are loading with a meaning that a preterist would not. And I would submit that the passage does not allow that “coming” to be separated out – so after I prove the foundational preteristic views of some passages, I can exegetically show why the ones not taken preteristically must be.

For example, Eusebius explained that he thought the Great Tribulation period of Matthew 24 was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem, yet he mentions nothing of a "coming of the Lord in judgment" and it is clear from his statements elsewhere that he believed in the future coming of the Lord.

This is patently unfair here Tim – this is a shell game, though it may be quite unintentional but I insist upon precision. I too believe in a future coming of the Lord so pointing out he did too really adds nothing but to insinuate that he could not believe in a past judgment-coming if he believed in a future coming, and you know that is not the case with preterism. Now we can specifically discuss Eusebius in another thread but this point will come up in a bit with Tertullian anyways.

So, either he did not believe in the two-fold coming of the Lord per partial-preterism, or he did believe it and never bothered mentioning anything about the "coming" at 70 A.D. (which would be very unlikely).

Again Tim this is a bait and switch, and a (I will assume unintentional) misrepresentation of preterism or you have dealt with some very sloppy preterists. Preterists do NOT believe in a two-fold coming of the Lord in the way you pointed there. Preterists believe that Christ’s coming IS His Kingdom which began with His physical First Advent and will end with His physical Second Advent. Preterists believe that Revelation 19 speaks of the present coming of Christ – ie His continual judging, and that passage speaks of Him coming in judgment on Rome hundreds of years after He came in AD70 so there is no “two-fold” anything (there are multiple judgment-comings in preterism) – you have a shallow view of preterism, and not meant as an insult just an observation that you need to understand the system better because that was a very sloppy critique.

Anyhoo, the point is your method of identifying preterists is too general. In fact, your method would identify all Christians as preterists.

No, you have missed again where I am being precise. I am not claiming Tertullian was a pure preterist but rather that he has some preteristIC interpretations (and one solidly preterist one) – in areas that are the key points of preterism. And not all Christians would be preterists – when I was not a preterist I didn’t believe that ANY of the Discourse was primarily past and I know plenty of futurists who believe that. Very few people are purely one view or the other.



Now onto the several claims I made:



The Seventy Weeks



It is undisputed that Tertullian wholly placed this as fulfilled (more on this later since it goes hand in hand with the Great Tribulation of the Discourse). This is a preterist reading though Tertullian was not himself a preterist. This is very telling and rules out any kind of dispensationalism on his part – but then any form of confusion of the fact that the Church is identified with Israel is absent in the ECF, not just the “earliest” ones, but ALL of them. To explore that in depth will be another thread.



The Great Tribulation



Now I had said earlier in the thread that Tertullian placed this in the past and Tim has brought forth a quote where he claims that Tertullian appeared to place it in the future. Before we dive into these quotes we need to remember not to ask too much of the Fathers:



From Alan Patrick Boyd pages 18 footnote 3

A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (until the death of Justin Martyr)

DTS Master’s thesis May 1997 (in partial fulfillment of requirement for same)

G.W.H. Lampe, “Early Patristic Eschatology,” in Eschatology by William Manson et al., (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd Ltd., 1953) pp 17-18, “It is even more difficult to de4al with the patr4istic writings as though they formed a homogeneous body of divinity…. It is scarcely possible to trace in the early Fathers a regular and logical pattern of consistent eschatology. Consistency is not one of the characteristics of the Fathers; and their lack of it is due primarily to one of their chief virtues – a sincere desire to interpret Scriptures faithfully, and, with certain notable exceptions, to expound the text with due regard to the Church’s established tradition of preaching and instruction. They are fundamentalists; any text of the canonical writings is of equal importance to any other, and, however difficult its interpretation may appear to be, it represents a part of the divinely provided data which have to be taken into proper account…. This Biblical fusion and inconsistency which wed find in many branches of patristic theology.”

Because of this there is good reason not to be dismayed that I don’t find a systematic preterist – I shouldn’t expect to, but I find what I expect, a mixture of elements of many different schools which today are distinct.



Now, Tim for some reason wanted me to address this quote of Tert and using which he says that Tert placed the Great Tribulation of the Discourse in the future:

… our prayers are directed towards the end of this world, to the passing away thereof at the great day of the Lord-of His wrath and vengeance-the last day, which is hidden (from all), and known to none but the Father,

And the point is? This is very similar to Gentry’s view which places a division of events in the Discourse, ones pertaining to the Jews and ones pertaining to the end of the world –the one that is known to the Father only. However, it is pretty clear that Tert regarded the “faithless generation” (of which a reasonable projection can be made as to to the identity of “this generation”) as the then living apostate Jews as evidenced by a

Chapter title from Against Marcion:

CHAP. XXIII.--IMPOSSIBLE THAT MARCION'S CHRIST SHOULD REPROVE THE FAITHLESS GENERATION.

I am becoming persuaded myself of a break in Matthew 24 though right now I would identify myself as supporting no break. Furthermore, this is the only place where “great” is used in the provided quote and this does not identify the Great Tribulation of the Discourse as taking place in the future. It certainly is not the Great Tribulation of the Jews (ie the time of Jacob’s trouble) of today’s futurists that Tert is positing. If he futurizes a Great Tribulation it is not the same event posited by today’s futurists (thus he cannot be used as support) using this passage – and when I say Tert preterizes the Great Trib I am agreeing with the futurist that said event has its focus as the Jews, but I am placing that time of tribulation in the past – as does Tert. If he is proven (which was not done here) to place it in the future, it is not a Great Trib to do with a Jewish orientation.

Being questioned by His disciples when those things were to come to pass which He had just been uttering about the destruction of the temple, He discourses to them first of the order of Jewish events until the overthrow of Jerusalem, and then of such as concerned all nations up to the very end of the world.

Again, so? This fits in nicely with preterism – and I am simply arguing for preteristIC elements. The FACT is that Tert does not anywhere give any hint whatsoever that the end of the world will involve any kind of special focus on the Jews or involve in any manner any antichrist who defiles some future rebuilt temple who’s destruction is the focus of a future tribulation.

For after He had declared that 'Jerusalem was to be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled,' -meaning, of course, those which were to be chosen of God, and gathered in with the remnant of Israel-He then goes on to proclaim, against this world and dispensation (even as Joel had done, and Daniel, and all the prophets with one consent), that 'there should be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth.' 'For,' says He, 'the powers of heaven shall be shaken; and then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds, with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh.' He spake of its 'drawing nigh,' not of its being present already; and of 'those things beginning to come to pass,' not of their having happened: because when they have come to pass, then our redemption shall be at hand, which is said to be approaching up to that time, raising and exciting our minds to what is then the proximate harvest of our hope. He immediately annexes a parable of this in 'the trees which are tenderly sprouting into a flower-stalk, and then developing the flower, which is the precursor of the fruit.' So likewise ye,' (He adds), 'when ye shall see all these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand.' 'Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all those things, and to stand before the Son of man;' that is, no doubt, at the resurrection, after all these things have been previously transacted. Therefore, although there is a sprouting in the acknowledgment of all this mystery, yet it is only in the actual presence of the Lord that the flower is developed and the fruit borne. Who is it then, that has aroused the Lord, now at God's right hand so unseasonably and with such severity 'shake terribly' (as Isaiah expresses it) 'that earth,' which, I suppose, is as yet unshattered? Who has thus early put 'Christ's enemies beneath His feet' (to use the language of David), making Him more hurried than the Father, whilst every crowd in our popular assemblies is still with shouts consigning 'the Christians to the lions?' Who has yet beheld Jesus descending from heaven in like manner as the apostles saw Him ascend, according to the appointment of the two angels? Up to the present moment they have not, tribe by tribe, smitten their breasts, looking on Him whom they pierced. No one has as yet fallen in with Elias; no one has as yet escaped from Antichrist; no one has as yet had to bewail the downfall of Babylon. And is there now anybody who has risen again, except the heretic?" –

This quote here is a distinct departure from any preterist interpretation for sure and is distinctly futurist YET is different from modern futurism in that he divorces the Israel portion of the Discourses from the future at all. Also note, contra dispensationalism, he unites the Church and Israel as one body.

I think your method of identifying preterism in the early church is too general, Dee Dee, as can be seen by your mistaken use of Tertullian (whom was a futurist premillennialist, btw). Your method would actually make all Christians "preterists," because everyone I know thinks the destruction of the temple described in the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled at 70 A.D. By the standard you seem to be setting, we could conclude that Cyrus Scofield was a preterist!

No you don’t hold it to be fulfilled (as in fully filled without a necessity of a future occurence or you would have to concede that the abomination of desolation happened then, and thus no gap in the seventy weeks. You may hold that it was a foreshadowing of some future event, but not the primary referent (if you hold to the majority position in dispensataionalism). Tert held it to be fulfilled and gives no whiff whatsoever of two different sieges being in view, but speaks of the siege against Jersusalem and the portions of the prophecy vis a vis the Jews to be fulfilled and not future as far as can be seen in his writings – he implictly denies the rebuilding of a temple or a restoration of the ethnopolitical state of the Jews and in fact states that if such happens, Jews could have a legimiate reason to claim a different Christ is coming as follows:



Note: all of my citations of Tertullian’s works can be found at the excellent site www.earlychristianwritings.com

if (according to the Jews) He is hitherto not come, when He begins to come whence will He be anointed? For the Law enjoined that, in captivity, it was not lawful for the unction of the royal chrism to be compounded. But, if there is no longer "unction" there as Daniel prophesied (for he says, "Unction shall be exterminated"), it follows that they no longer have it, because neither have they a temple where was the "horn" from which kings were wont to be anointed. If, then, there is no unction, whence shall be anointed the "leader" who shall be born in Bethlehem? or how shall he proceed "from Bethlehem," seeing that of the seed of Israel none at all exists in Bethlehem.



and





Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that "both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin." And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His. Which matters we prove, again, on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.



and



A second time, in fact, let us show that Christ is already come, (as foretold) through the prophets, and has suffered, and is already received back in the heavens, and thence is to come accordingly as the predictions prophesied. For, after His advent, we read, according to Daniel, that the city itself had to be exterminated; and we recognise that so it has befallen. For the Scripture says thus, that "the city and the holy place are simultaneously exterminated together with the leader," -undoubtedly (that Leader) who was to proceed "from Bethlehem," and from the tribe of "Judah." Whence, again, it is manifest that "the city must simultaneously be exterminated" at the time when its "Leader" had to suffer in it, (as foretold) through the Scriptures of the prophets, who say: "I have outstretched my hands the whole day unto a People contumacious and gainsaying Me, who walketh in a way not good, but after their own sins."



and



Since, therefore, the Jews were predicted as destined to suffer these calamities on Christ's account, and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into dispersion and abiding in it, manifest it is that it is on Christ's account that these things have befallen the Jews, the sense of the Scriptures harmonizing with the issue of events and of the order of the times. Or else, if Christ is not yet come, on whose account they were predicted as destined thus to suffer, when He shall have come it follows that they will thus suffer. And where will then be a daughter of Sion to be derelict, who now has no existence? where the cities to be exust, which are already exust and in heaps? where the dispersion of a race which is now in exile? Restore to Judea the condition which Christ is to find; and (then, if you will), contend that some other (Christ) is coming. (An Answer to the Jews)

At all events, if the Creator's Christ has not come yet, on whose account the prophecy dooms them to such sufferings, they will have to endure the sufferings when He shall have come. Then where will there be a daughter of Sion to be reduced to desolation, for there is none now to be found? Where will there be cities to be burnt with fire, for they are now in heaps? Where a nation to be dispersed, which is already in banishment? Restore to Judaea its former state, that the Creator's Christ may find it, and then you may contend that another Christ has come. But then, again, how is it that He can have permitted to range through His own heaven one whom He was some day to put to death on His own earth, after the more noble and glorious region of His kingdom had been violated, and His own very palace and sublimest height had been trodden by him? Or was it only in appearance rather that he did this? God is no doubt a jealous God! Yet he gained the victory. You should blush with shame, who put your faith in a vanquished god! What have you to hope for from him, who was not strong enough to protect himself? For it was either through his infirmity that he was crushed by the powers and human agents of the Creator, or else through maliciousness, in order that he might fasten so great a stigma on them by his endurance of their wickedness.

(Against Marcion, Book III, Chapter XXIII)

It also be noted that, like preterists and amills, Tert believed:

Some places there were in Jerusalem where to teach; other places outside Jerusalem whither to retire ----"in the day-time He was teaching in the temple; "just as He had foretold by Hosea: "In my house did they find me, and there did I speak with them." "But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives." For thus had Zechariah pointed out: "And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives." (Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter XL)

As well as aspects of the prophecy of Isaiah where a child may put his hand into the den of a viper.

Who is He that shall bestow "the power of treading on serpents and scorpions?" Shall it be He who is the Lord of all living creatures or he who is not god over a single lizard? Happily the Creator has promised by Isaiah to give this power even to little children, of putting their hand in the cockatrice den and on the hole of the young asps without at all receiving hurt. And, indeed, we are aware (without doing violence to the literal sense of the passage, since even these noxious animals have actually been unable to do hurt where there has been faith) that under the figure of scorpions and serpents are portended evil spirits, whose very prince is described by the name of serpent, dragon, and every other most conspicuous beast in the power of the Creator. This power the Creator conferred first of all upon His Christ, even as the ninetieth Psalm says to Him: "Upon the asp and the basilisk shall Thou tread; the lion and the dragon shall Thou trample under foot." So also Isaiah: "In that day the Lord God shall draw His sacred, great, and strong sword" (even His Christ) "against that dragon, that great and tortuous serpent; and He shall slay him in that day." But when the same prophet says, "The way shall be called a clean and holy way; over it the unclean thing shall not pass, nor shall be there any unclean way; but the dispersed shall pass over it, and they shall not err therein; no lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon; it shall not be found there," he points out the way of faith, by which we shall reach to God; and then to this way of faith he promises this utter crippling and subjugation of all noxious animals. Lastly, you may discover the suitable times of the promise, if you read what precedes the passage: "Be strong, ye weak hands and ye feeble knees: then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be articulate." When, therefore, He proclaimed the benefits of His cures, then also did He put the scorpions and the serpents under the feet of His saints--even He who had first received this power from the Father, in order to bestow it upon others and then manfested it forth conformably to the order of prophecy. (Against Marcion, Book III, Chapter XXIV)

In conclusion:



Tert was:

• Premillennial (I have seen nothing to dispute that though he certainly was NOT dispensational premillennial) – though he has an amill interpretation of the children being able to put their hands in the lair of a viper and a view of Daniel 9 that agrees with amill and directly opposes any dispensational interpretation (modern dispensationalists have called Daniel 9 the “key to understanding prophecy” – which key Tert apparently misplaced)
  
  
  
  Distinctly preteristIC - he held to a preterist view of the tribulation of the Jews and the seventy weeks – the one thing he did not apply was to refer to the event as a “coming”
  
  
  
  Futurist – however, he is not a pure futurist – he does not place all of the Discourse in the future, and disallows that part of it refers to the future. He also preterizes Daniel 9. Most of the events he places in the future many or all preterists would agree with, just not the passages he uses. In the same way, I believe in the Trinity but do not agree that every passage the Fathers used to prove it do in fact prove it. Just because Tert applies a passage as referring to the future Second Coming does not in fact means that it does – it is a strong indicator that the doctrine was taught and believed (contra the NeoHymenaean heretics) but not necessarily that the passage in question was teaching it.
  
  

I think Pastor Seraiah explains this point well in “The End of All Things”

Why the Confusion of Passages?



At this point it’s pertinent to state the reason the early Church made a mistake with regard to certain texts of Scripture. It is evident why the apostles taught both about the coming of Christ in the first century, we well as the Final Advent of Christ to judge all men (not just Israel) at the end of history. It took years, however, for all of the texts of the New Testament to be copied and then circulated among all the churches. During this time it was already believed (based on the verbal teaching of the Apostles) that Christ was to return on some unknown day in the future to judge all men. Thus when the numerous texts of the Scriptures did get into the hands of churches that had not seen some of these texts ever before (probably towards the end of the first century, but definitely after the year 70), they began to misinterpret the texts that refer to the judgment on Israel in 70 as being the same as the texts that refer to the Final Advent of Christ at the end of the world. Clearly, not all of them did; many plainly did view (correctly) numerous prophecies as relating to Christ’s destruction of Jerusalem.

Again, as I said, strands of all views excluding dispensationalism are found very early. (if Tim wishes to dispute this he may start another thread or be patient as I am planning on doing so at some point) In Tert we have seen preterist, preteristIC, futurist, futuristIC, and amill interpretations.



As a side note, it appears that Tert was also not the literalist and followed the style of reading into the OT references to Christ:

Again, the mystery of this "tree" we read as being celebrated even in the Books of the Reigns. For when the sons of the prophets were cutting "wood" with axes on the bank of the river Jordan, the iron flew off and sank in the stream; and so, on Elisha the prophet's coming up, the sons of the prophets beg of him to extract from the stream the iron which had sunk. And accordingly Elisha, having taken "wood," and cast it into that place where the iron had been submerged, forthwith it rose and swam on the surface, and the "wood" sank, which the sons of the prophets recovered. Whence they understood that Elijah's spirit was presently conferred upon him. What is more manifest than the mystery of this "wood,"--that the obduracy of this world had been sunk in the profundity of error, and is freed in baptism by the "wood" of Christ, that is, of His passion; in order that what had formerly perished through the "tree" in Adam, should be restored through the "tree" in Christ? while we, of course, who have succeeded to, and occupy, the room of the prophets, at the present day sustain in the world that treatment which the prophets always suffered on account of divine religion: for some they stoned, some they banished; more, however, they delivered to mortal slaughter,--a fact which they cannot deny. (An Answer to the Jews)

[kendemyer]

Dear Dee Dee:

I have not read you or TimC's recent posts. I would like to though when and if time permits and God willing of course. In the meantime, I wish to add something to my last post. I believe Aristotle's law of non-contradiction applies. Either you are a preterist or you are not. Tertullian was not a preterist he was a futurist.

Secondly, it occurred to me that the concept of "overlapping sets" is useful. For example, I believe that Peter was an Apostle of Jesus and along with John he had some prominence in the Apostle circle and I am a protestant. This, however, does not make me a "nascient Roman Catholic" or have "elements of Roman Catholicism" .

I hope this helps clarify things.

Hopefully you have stated who defintely was the very first orthodox preterist
in history.


See you when I get back.


Sincerely,

Ken

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Ken

I am getting the distinct impression from you that have a conclusion and are going to assume it throughout - I could be wrong and would love for you to pleasantly surprise me.

I believe Aristotle's law of non-contradiction applies. Either you are a preterist or you are not. Tertullian was not a preterist he was a futurist.

That is untrue and an extraordinarily shallow understanding of the law of noncontradiction - and a misprepresentation of my position in the first place. I am not claiming any purposeful misrep here at all, just so that I am clear. Further discussion I am sure will clarify.

The Law of Noncontradiction
1. Definition - A cannot be both B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense.

http://www.biblicaltraining.org/clas...y/16_wm_f.html

The law of noncontradiction holds that A cannot be non-A in the same way at the same time.

Secondly, it occurred to me that the concept of "overlapping sets" is useful. For example, I believe that Peter was an Apostle of Jesus and along with John he had some prominence in the Apostle circle and I am a protestant. This, however, does not make me a "nascient Roman Catholic" or have "elements of Roman Catholicism" .

Perhaps you should stick to dealing with my points for you have betrayed a pretty shallow understanding of them with that example. But again, you have not read my last post which went into more detail so this is understandable.

Hopefully you have stated who defintely was the very first orthodox preterist
in history.

No because that is not the point of this thread. It is irrelevant at this point. The very first orthodox preterist in history was Christ. That is all I need to hold - because my foundation is Scripture (as I assume is yours and Tim's without a doubt). The rest of this discussion on my part is motivated at curbing that I see to be unsupported sweeping claims made in other threads and some braggadicio.

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

I think that Tertullian could not have ever been a preterist and a non-preterist at the same time and in the same sense. I believe we have evidence that Tertullian was a premillenial futurist and no evidence that he was a full fledged orthodox preterist (I think my Peter/Protestant/Roman Catholic illustration was useful). I think you are confusing overlapping sets with potentiality of someone becoming or having some degree of preterism.

Also, I think the Bible has to be taken wholistically and the preterist unduly concentrate on the Olivet discourse and I think Tertullian is a good example. Tertullian again appears to be a millenial futurist. Tertullian appears to be more whollistic and accepts the eschatological data in Revelation concerning the 1,000 year reign and is a millenialist.

I am beginning to take the view that we are not going to come to any agreement on this matter of premillenial futurism and preterism at least in the short term. Given that you wish this thread to be kept very much on topic I will merely say I have made a proposal for a certain debate to take place at an appropriate time which I very much realize is not now given your present circumstances and priorities. Ideally, I wish to primarily concentrate my short term future efforts in this regard, however.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ken:

He who asserts must prove. I answered all of your objections, and all you did was reassert them according to your foregone bias IMHO. Eerything I stated was conservative and reasonable and you have failed to interact with any substantive point I have made. This I believe silences some inordinate braggadicio demonstrated by yourself before on the issue of Tertuallian. Reassertions without interaction are insufficient. Normally speaking sticky threads are for well balanced discussions and featured debates in the Gym. Personally I think the cock-crowing (which I put to paid on this thread IMHO with regards to Tertullian) that has taken place without reasonable concessions on the futurist side is not something I would highlight. If there was genuine give and take and concessions on what exactly was held that would be a different story.

I will then move on to other Father that you were somewhat obnoxious about that I had brought up previously to show without the rabbit trails and distractions that the braggadacio was unwarranted.

Frankly I am disappionted that you are not showing reasonable concessions. I leave that to the reader to mull upon. I think that such will cast shadows on the threads you think are so strong in your camp. Once I was able to narrow it down to just one FAther, it was easily shown that things are not as black and white as presented.

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

You, Dee Dee wrote:

I answered all of your objections, and all you did was reassert them according to your foregone bias IMHO.

Here is an excerpt from another debate at another place on the internet in which I dwell on the "bias card" which I merely believe is a genetic logical fallacy (see: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...etic%20fallacy ). I changed the person's name to XXX because I do not want to dwell on that person's mistake.


Here is the excerpt:

XXX:
That's because, Kendemyer, you are too biased. Perhaps you think bias is irrelevant in science, huh?

XXX:
Well, posting the theological reasons that inspired you to undertake this research illuminates your bias, now doesn't it?.......

...XXX, here is a very salient paragraph that sums up a essay by C.S. Lewis I once read 20 years ago that I have never forgotten:

"Some day," Lewis wrote, "I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father - who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third, 'Oh you say that because you are a man.' 'At that moment,' E. Bulver assures us, 'there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the ... dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.' That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century." ( taken from the webiste: http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoret...adingissue.html )

XXX, I think you should consider that essay. Now am I denying that a person's belief structure can influence his decision making abilities. Of course, not! But we can both scream bias at each other at the top of our lungs but where will that get us? Here is where I suggest it would get us:

XXX: You are more biased than I am.

Ken: Am not. You are more biased than me!

XXX: Are you kidding? You are WAY more biased than me!!

Ken: You are fooling yourself if you think that I am more biased than YOU!!!

etc etc etc

I can maintain I researched and wrote the piece because I was in search of truth and you can say your wrote your rebuttal for the same reason. In short, stalemate.

Ultimately, we have to look at the facts. When I began this detective pursuit of the facts I followed the creed of a American icon "Joe Friday" who you may remember said, "Just the facts, Ma'am".

I will let readers decide the reasonableness of the rest of your last post. I have no commentary on the Dee Dee versus TimC posts by in large in this thread since I have not studied/looked at the argumentation contained therein fully yet although I did in part and I commented on what I had read.

Sincerely,

Ken

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee, addendum

I am not saying that you are totally like that skeptic who I addressed the material to and was very reliant on that genetic logical fallacy ("bias card"). I do think you attempted to give evidence but I disagree on the validity of the argumentation you offered.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Dee Dee Warren]

Here is an excerpt from another debate at another place on the internet in which I dwell on the "bias card" which I merely believe is a genetic logical fallacy

Ken, you have several debate habits, one is to try to label any criticism of your posts as a fallacy and two, to think you need to come up with quotes and links for everything. That may not be an official fallacy but it is known in the debate word as fluff and padding. I offered support for the fact of your bias. You should deal with that rather than running a google search and inventing dialogs.

I will let readers decide the reasonableness of the rest of your last post. I have no commentary on the Dee Dee versus TimC posts by in large in this thread since I have not looked at the argumentation contained therein fully yet although I did in part and commented on what I had read.

Arguments can rarely be understood in part in this manner, and if you had not read the posts, you should have exercised a bit more discretion or self-control and not posted until you had. I know this fault well as I share it, don't speak until you can interact meaningfully. This to me is further evidence of your eagerness to be "right" and not to interact.

[Dee Dee Warren]

addendum to Ken: thank you for your clarification

[kendemyer]

to: Dee Dee

I did not do a google search to find that dialogue regarding the genetic logical fallacy. It was taken from a debate I had with a Bible skeptic.

Second, I do not find quoting or giving links to be a vice but I believe it is a virtue. I believe in supporting my argumentation via evidence or good argumentation I have read from others and giving credit where credit is due.

Third, I address logical fallacies, historical fallacies, etc. I point out such matters because I believe it clarifies the matter being debated.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Dee Dee Warren]

I stand by my point. It is not necessary to provide links and quotes for every single thing - it makes one appear to be padding. If you don't care that is your business. Enough on that point - the thread can stay on topic. You admitted I did not in fact commit the genetic fallacy - so you had no reason for that excursion, and it was filler. I gave support for my assertion with the prima facie case that you feel comfortable making assertions without admittedly even reading the entire argument. Please I have to ask you not to respond further in this thread until you have read the posts and can please interact fully.

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee, addendum

I did interject in the recent dialogue between you and TimC which I read it in part, because it seemed very acrimonious, and I wished to offer some input that I thought might make the thread less acrimonious. You can call it a lack of self control but the thread appeared to be heading of a cliff in terms of it civility and I though it could use a little refereeing.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ken, please. Tim and I are fine in this thread, no need for you to interject, me and Tim handled our own business. I respectfully submit as a fellow sufferer that you do have a forum posting self-control issue. I understand completely. We can discuss this in another thread of your choosing if you wish. Please keep this one on track.