What do Preterists tend to believe concerning issues like Christian Reconstructionism.

In a thread under the Escatology board I noticed that some preterists rely on authors like Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, and other Reconstructionists. How typical is this connection?

Jacob

I think it is a one-way connection, meaning this... while most modern reconstructionists seem to be preterist and postmill, not all preterists and postmill are reconstructionists. The more prolific preterist writers do seem to fall in that camp though but the two do not as a necessity go hand in hand.

Today @ 03:56 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

I think it is a one-way connection, meaning this... while most modern reconstructionists seem to be preterist and postmill, not all preterists and postmill are reconstructionists. The more prolific preterist writers do seem to fall in that camp though but the two do not as a necessity go hand in hand.

Thanks Dee Dee,

That's helpful to know.

I see why a reconstructionist would favor preterist & postmill positions. I'm wondering if, hermeneutically, there is some distinction which would separate the reconstructionists from the (?) non-reconstructionist preterists? Is there a name for the non-reconstructionist preterism?

Related to this, how do non-recon. preterists view the reconstructionists and their positions? How about their hermeneutics? Any other areas of criticism or general disagreement between these camps?

Jacob

I'm wondering if, hermeneutically, there is some distinction which would separate the reconstructionists from the (?) non-reconstructionist preterists?

The issue of separation would be Theonomy. Not all preterists are Theonomic (e.g. Jay Adams, R.C. Sproul)

Is there a name for the non-reconstructionist preterism?

No, just as there is no name for non-presbyterian preterism either.

Related to this, how do non-recon. preterists view the reconstructionists and their positions? How about their hermeneutics? Any other areas of criticism or general disagreement between these camps?

I think you are confusing some issues. Preterism is simply one particular method of prophetic interpretation focusing on fulfilled prophecy.

Reconstructionism is a reformed perspective of Biblical ethics combined with an optimistic eschatology. Kenneth Gentry wrote in House Divided:

"Reconstructionism involves a postmillennial eschatology, and sometimes includes a preteristic interpretation of certain prophecies. Preterism is not essential to Reconstructionism, and it is a mistake to argue that it is." p. 282.

Non-recon preterists have been mostly silent on reconstructionism, since it is not an area that is relevant to their studies on fulfilled prophecy of A.D. 70. But they are very appreciative of Reconstructionist writers who have written and promoted preterism such as David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry and Gary North and Gary DeMar.

The main area of controversy has been between the Orthodox (ie. Partial) preterism of Christian Reconstructionists and the heretical Hyper-preterists of Ed Stevens, Max King, et al. who BTW are not reconstuctionists.

Recent Developments in Eschatological Debate

And as I said earlier, the main issue with reconstructionism is over Theonomy or God's moral and civil laws applicable to our age.

So asking what a non-recon preterist thinks about reconstructionism is like asking him or her to comment on something that is outside their area of specialized eschatological study. Of course, they probably have some opinions on it, but it would not be related to anything connected to preterism itself other than some gratefulness for reconstructionists promoting this particular method of prophetic interpretation in their own controversy with Dispensationalist futurism.

Colin

Well and truly written, Colin.

I appreciate your articulate explications of preterism and theonomy.

Blessings,

John

Yesterday @ 09:01 PM post located here
CT292:

Non-recon preterists have been mostly silent on reconstructionism, since it is not an area that is relevant to their studies on fulfilled prophecy of A.D. 70. But they are very appreciative of Reconstructionist writers who have written and promoted preterism such as David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry and Gary North and Gary DeMar.
...
...

So asking what a non-recon preterist thinks about reconstructionism is like asking him or her to comment on something that is outside their area of specialized eschatological study. Of course, they probably have some opinions on it, but it would not be related to anything connected to preterism itself other than some gratefulness for reconstructionists promoting this particular method of prophetic interpretation in their own controversy with Dispensationalist futurism.

Colin

Evidently you missed the basic question I was trying to ask, so I'll restate it... ... What is the hermeneutical difference between preterists who are reconstructionists/theonomists and those who are not reconstructionists/theonomists? I want to know how, or why, this disagreement exists, given a relatively common hermeneutic.

Think of my question this way: The basic hermeneutical difference between Dispensationalists & preterists lies in the issue of how literally one interprets prophetic language. Is there some difference in interpretive principle which separates theonomists from non-theonomists, especially among those who share preterism as a conclusion?

thanks,

Jacob.

06-12-2003 @ 03:01 PM post located here
CT292:
The issue of separation would be Theonomy. Not all preterists are Theonomic (e.g. Jay Adams, R.C. Sproul)

And let us remember of course that not all Theonomists are preterists or postmillennial - or reconstructionist!

Glenn