Hey, all of you warring pereterists and dispensational futurists, why not reconsider premillennial historicism?

Preterists box themselves into the first century: everything had to happen by 70 A.D.

Dispensational futurists box themselves into a tiny 7-year space: everything has to happen during a coming tribulation.

Both end up declaring irrelevant everything that has happened between 70 A.D. and 2006 A.D. (That's a lot of stuff to miss out on!)

Can you think of anything between 70 and 2006 that might be significant? Quick, dismiss that evil thought! (if you're a preterist or a dispensational futurist)

David

Originally posted by David_A_Reed

Hey, all of you warring pereterists and dispensational futurists, why not reconsider premillennial historicism?

Preterists box themselves into the first century: everything had to happen by 70 A.D.

Dispensational futurists box themselves into a tiny 7-year space: everything has to happen during a coming tribulation.

Both end up declaring irrelevant everything that has happened between 70 A.D. and 2006 A.D. (That's a lot of stuff to miss out on!)

Can you think of anything between 70 and 2006 that might be significant? Quick, dismiss that evil thought! (if you're a preterist or a dispensational futurist)

David

Historicism blames Rome way too much for my tastes. Otherwise it is intriguing

Because premillennialism is wrong. Jesus is reigning now.

Any other view is defeatist and a tragic view of the ministry of Christ.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

Historicism blames Rome way too much for my tastes. Otherwise it is intriguing

Bill,

Then, why not develop an historicist approach that you feel takes a proper view of Rome, according to your understanding of Scripture? I'm sure folks here would find it interesting and challenging.

There are more flavors of historicism than there are of dispensationalism or preterism, simply because there is more room for different understandings. After all, how much room for variation can there be when one thinks everything happens during 7 years, or everything happened in 70 A.D. But historicists have the whole breadth and depth of history to look at.

There is only one true eschatology, of course, and the Lord knows what it is, and those to whom He reveals it. But He often reveals the understanding of prophecy on a 'need to know' basis.

Since dispensational futurism swept over the church 150 years ago, not much has been written from a historicist viewpoint -- so recent historical developments have been neglected. There are some web sites that now try to fill that gap, but just think of what could be uncovered with more faithful souls prayerfully looking at Scripture from the historicist approach.

David

Originally posted by David_A_Reed

Hey, all of you warring pereterists and dispensational futurists, why not reconsider premillennial historicism?

Preterists box themselves into the first century: everything had to happen by 70 A.D.

Dispensational futurists box themselves into a tiny 7-year space: everything has to happen during a coming tribulation.

Both end up declaring irrelevant everything that has happened between 70 A.D. and 2006 A.D. (That's a lot of stuff to miss out on!)

Can you think of anything between 70 and 2006 that might be significant? Quick, dismiss that evil thought! (if you're a preterist or a dispensational futurist)

David

What a ridiculously arbitrary hermeneutic.

Let's not look at what God's word says; no no... let's try to give as much subjective "meaning" to an arbitrary time period as we can, because surely relegating such things to short periods of time can't be right, can it?

There is a way which seems wise to man....

Originally posted by Xavier

Because premillennialism is wrong. Jesus is reigning now.

Any other view is defeatist and a tragic view of the ministry of Christ.

How about the view that Jesus is indeed reigning now -- over the millions who look to Him as Lord. We who love Him have already transferred our citizenship from the nations to the Kingdom of God. And soon that Kingdom will war victoriously against the enemies of God.

Even now, we achieve miraculous personal victories in our lives and in the lives of those we touch with the power of the Holy Spirit. And soon the victory will be complete when the Lord returns in power.

David

Originally posted by David_A_Reed

Hey, all of you warring pereterists and dispensational futurists, why not reconsider premillennial historicism?

Preterists box themselves into the first century: everything had to happen by 70 A.D.

Dispensational futurists box themselves into a tiny 7-year space: everything has to happen during a coming tribulation.

Both end up declaring irrelevant everything that has happened between 70 A.D. and 2006 A.D. (That's a lot of stuff to miss out on!)

Can you think of anything between 70 and 2006 that might be significant? Quick, dismiss that evil thought! (if you're a preterist or a dispensational futurist)

David

LOL Sounds likes some of E's nonsense.

Originally posted by Hitch

LOL Sounds likes some of E's nonsense.

Indeed. Ain't it goofy?

Btw, great siggy, Hitch!

Originally posted by David_A_Reed

Hey, all of you warring pereterists and dispensational futurists, why not reconsider premillennial historicism?

For the same reason I don't reconsider wearing white after Labour Day. It's wrong

Preterists box themselves into the first century: everything had to happen by 70 A.D.

Oopsie my friend. Let's have a little corrective.

Heretics say everything had to happen by AD70 - this is not the unorthodox theology area of the forum, so don't expect such to answer.

Preterists believe many things happened in the first century (you are just as radical to a Jew BTW)

Clear now? Or do I need to rap your knuckles again?

This thread starts off with an assumption that needs to be corrected:

Not all preterists hold that all prophecy has been fulfilled by 70 AD. And they (even hyper-preterists) most certainly don't believe 70-2006 is "irrelevant". If anything, they think the opposite.

[edit] Looks like DeeDee beat me to the punch.


[edit]

I suspect that the main reason some reject preterism so quickly is because their first exposure to it is from some hyper-preterist perspective.....A perspective that partial preterists would consider heretical as well.

No, the only year in that time period that is truly irrelevant was 1892. Absolutely nothing significant happened that year.

Originally posted by A Cup of Mystery

No, the only year in that time period that is truly irrelevant was 1892. Absolutely nothing significant happened that year.

I thought it was 1897!

Originally posted by SpinyNorman

I thought it was 1897!

Nope, it was 1892. Trust me on this.

Originally posted by David_A_Reed

How about the view that Jesus is indeed reigning now -- over the millions who look to Him as Lord. We who love Him have already transferred our citizenship from the nations to the Kingdom of God. And soon that Kingdom will war victoriously against the enemies of God.

Even now, we achieve miraculous personal victories in our lives and in the lives of those we touch with the power of the Holy Spirit. And soon the victory will be complete when the Lord returns in power.

David

I would concur with the above- like nearly everything else eschatological in the Bible, Jesus' reign has both a "here already" dimension and a "not yet" dimension. I think Xavier knows this but he just forgot to formulate his statement that way.

Originally posted by Amazing Rando

[...] I think Xavier knows this but he just forgot to formulate his statement that way.

David,

I would fall under the umbrella of premillenial historicism; albeit a generic form of historicism that isn't as fine tuned on some of the details. So don't despair. Dee Dee and Straylight are correct though. "Partial" Preterists don't hold to the insignificance of everything that's happened since 70 A.D.

Here's a question though for dispensational futurists. If the church age is a "parenthesis" or an "intercalation" as Chafer called it, and this whole age is a mystery, then how can the reestablishment of Israel in 1948 be the fulfillment of bible prophecy? Did I misunderstand anything?

Kaine Diatheke