Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK  This does not really answer my original question.
Are you asking because you see a parallel in the implications of my query with the historicist hermeneutic? If so, that would be an interesting question.
Or, are you trying to defend the compelling nature of the preterist hermeneutic by pointing out that the historicist also uses extra-biblical sources to arrive at their hermeneutic? |
What I'm suggesting is that I do not know of any eschatological hermeneutic (sic) that does not look to extra-biblical sources for some sort of confirmation. The historicist approach relies on a proper interpretation of the history of the Roman papacy for its legitimacy. The futurist … well, that another matter altogether.
I would say there is compelling internal and external evidence for the preterist approach to interpreting the Bible.
Since the hermeneutics employed by the preterist is really no different that that used by any other Reformed/Calvinist interpreter, I am quite convinced that it is legitimate apart from external evidences.
The only thing that is different is the conclusion reached by those who hold to the various positions within the Reformed worldview.