Does preterism lead to atheism?

[seanD]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked.

I was sort of kidding. Read Adrift's post #137. He nailed it better than I did.

[One Bad Pig]

Having had personal experience with a "lesser demon", I already know about their power. There is far too much coordination, and a much more intense anti-Christ spirit, and evil in comparison.

You don't know that all demons have equal power, however.

Then where is the final battle Revelation speaks of happening?

Revelation 20:7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Hasn't happened yet. If Satan has indeed been released, he's still busy gathering his armies. You'll note that there is no explicit time table for this.

Having studied it extensively, I do. All of the evidence I've looked at over the years suggests that the Islamic "Allah" is none other than Satan himself. He is the "greatest of deceivers", and "all deception belongs to him". He wishes for the extermination of the Jews, and will send the Mahdi to accomplish this. All who do not follow the Mahdi will be beheaded. He will perform miracles, and will have the Muslim "Isa" support him. He will take over the world through military might, and enforce Sharia law.
The parallels between the Muslim Mahdi, and the Beast(commonly called the Antichrist) are downright scary. The whole of the Islamic system is anti-Christ from top to bottom. You can see the similarities listed and expounded upon in more depth here, and here.

According to John's letters, there is more than one antichrist - and even where the term is used in the singular, it is not referring to Satan himself.

Revelation 20:2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

That doesn't sound at all like the world we live in.

Most of that doesn't say anything about the world we live in. That the nations are now being deceived may mean that Satan is now unbound, unlike before - or you could be misinterpreting current events as the deception of the nations. Prophecy is usually clear only in hindsight.

[Cerebrum123]

You don't know that all demons have equal power, however.

Never said they were(in fact, I know they don't), but what I'm talking would take thousands upon thousands of them working in concert over thousands of years.

Hasn't happened yet. If Satan has indeed been released, he's still busy gathering his armies. You'll note that there is no explicit time table for this.

The text suggests a rather immediate battle, and subsequent judgment on Satan. Especially since it says that Satan is only to be let loose for a short time. It wouldn't take long to incite such a rebellion, especially under your belief that none of the demons out now are as powerful as Satan.

According to John's letters, there is more than one antichrist - and even where the term is used in the singular, it is not referring to Satan himself.

When I say "antichrist spirit", I mean something that is far beyond mankind, and what mankind is capable of. Especially those who were involved. Satan is described as the power behind "the beast", who is seen as the Antichrist. Only Satan fits as the one behind these actions.

Revelation 13:1 The dragon[a] stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”

The power behind the "beast" is Satan here. He's the "dragon" after all. I'd say he's the primary force behind all of that which could be called "antichrist". Even if it is in a more indirect way.

Most of that doesn't say anything about the world we live in. That the nations are now being deceived may mean that Satan is now unbound, unlike before - or you could be misinterpreting current events as the deception of the nations. Prophecy is usually clear only in hindsight.

It says that during the 1,000 years that Satan is bound, and unable to deceive the nations. That doesn't describe any period in Earth's history, and certainly not now. It also speaks of the Saints being resurrected, and ruling alongside Christ as they await the Great White Throne judgment. Again, this does not describe anything in our past. Your last sentence actually speaks against what you've said so far. 90% of that should be in hindsight right now, and it certainly doesn't seem very clear.

[Rushing Jaws]

If you check Roderick's website I think you will see he is talking mainly about partial preterism. He was a partial preterist for 15 years before he rejected it. Sam Frost is named as another who followed the same path. I don't think Roderick ever accepted full preterism. I think Craig is talking about partial preterism as well, because he criticizes a coming in judgment in 70AD. Of course both modern preterism and futurism were introduced by the Jesuits to counter Protestant historicism in the 18th century.

The Jesuits don't seem to have become atheists. So if they introduced preterism, and if preterism leads to atheism, why are they not atheists ? The Jesuits did not have to "introduce" either preterism or futurism, as the Fathers of the first four centuries held these views: https://beatimundocorde.wordpress.co...t-historicism/

[Christianbookworm]

Huh. Looks like the only option is to develop contingency plans for every eschatological scenario. Maybe I should start a thread about possible plans!

[Rushing Jaws]

I'm a long time member of TWEB. In the old days I asserted that preterism, taken to its logical conclusions, can lead to atheism. It turns out I wasn't just whistling dixie.

Famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig gives a personal expeirience where one of his colleagues was led to atheism by preterism. It is at 8:30 of his video below. He also gives a critique of preterism in the next video.

https://youtu.be/tRgSBmQfL_A

https://youtu.be/a7NSBjGy7m0

Long time preterist Roderick E. puts it this way.



http://unpreterist.blogspot.com/2014...onclusion.html


Another danger of preterism is that it leads to liberal political views that reject traditional Christian values, as in the Libertarian party. Famous atheists like magician Penn Gillette are Libertarians. The folowing video shows how Christian values are made fun of.

https://youtu.be/S4BY5ZGurCU

Roderick E.'s "Preterism's Premises" are not the only ones possible. As for the objection that preterism leads to the "wrong" political views - I don't understand that reasoning at all. Are people to avoid certain decisions about the meaning of Scripture, not because those decisions are exegetically unjustified, but because they are compatible with political and social positions that are deemed undesirable ? If the Reformers had thought in that way, Protestantism would not exist.

Whether a view is exegetically, theologically or socially "liberal" or not, could not be less important. Whether Christians are made fun of, does not matter. Sound exegesis of Scripture matters a lot, and if the results are uncomfortable for the Church and society, maybe that is exactly the message that the Church and society need to hear.

If preterism is objectionable, objections to it should be based on its inadequacies as a method of exegesis, since it stands, or falls, as a method of exegesis. Its social effects, real or imagined, are immaterial if it is good at doing what it is meant to do. Besides, life is usually too complicated for one thing - in this case, preterism - to be the only cause of an effect; whether atheism, being a Libertarian, or anything else. If preterists do not become atheists, that could be because preterism does not of itself lead to atheism, and not because they are being inconsistent or too thoughtless to pursue the logic of preterism.