Thread: Should I be a partial preterist or not?

I asked a friend of mine what his eschatological opinions were, and he gave me some string of statements, starting with "If you were a student of history, then you would know..." and listed some events that paralleled my limited recollections of events described in Revelation.

Is there some good argument in favor of partial preterism? Were many of the events described in the book really fulfilled by the end of the first century?

Should I be a partial preterist or not?

Not.

Just kidding, I'm not really sure. I do know that R.C. Sproul is a partial preterist, but I'm not familiar with the arguments.

Everyone is a partial preterist to some extent. Just make sure you don't go down the road to hyper. Ken Gentry has some good matieral on the subject.

Originally Posted by Blueridge Believer

Everyone is a partial preterist to some extent. Just make sure you don't go down the road to hyper. Ken Gentry has some good matieral on the subject.

I've been meaning to read a lot of stuff on eschatology: Riddlebarger on amillennialism, etc. I'll be sure to check some out!

Originally Posted by Hamalas

Just kidding, I'm not really sure. I do know that R.C. Sproul is a partial preterist, but I'm not familiar with the arguments.

Yeah, I know at least one popular guy would agree with me then.

See Sproul's "The Last Days According to Jesus". Seems to me it all hinges on a pre-70 A.D. authorship of Revelation.

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

See Sproul's "The Last Days According to Jesus". Seems to me it all hinges on a pre-70 A.D. authorship of Revelation.

This is why I would never be so bold as to dogmatize preterism. The church has never come to a definitive conclusion on an early or late date. There are good arguments on both sides.

BTW, when I hear statements like, "If you were a student of history, then you would know..." I assume that the person doesn't know what he is talking about. He is basically saying, "If you don't agree with me, you are an idiot." He is poisoning the well. This is a favorite tactic of the hyper-preterist.

Preterism has a lot of good points to make about how we as Christians (especially those of the Dispensational variety) should view the entire scope of redemptive history. The problem is that they take things way to far.

For ex.

Was Nero an anti-christ? MOST DEFINITELY! Was he the only one, absolutely not... You have Caligula, Hitler, Muhammad, ect. People of that sort who definitely fit the bill.

The preterist presents an argument that forces us to re-examine the scriptures within part of its historical context.

We just have to remember that the work is not yet complete...

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

See Sproul's "The Last Days According to Jesus". Seems to me it all hinges on a pre-70 A.D. authorship of Revelation.

Yes, but preterism also sees Mark 13 & the Olivette Discourse as being an account of the destruction of the Temple and not the eschaton. Normally, the latter part of this chapter is interpreted eschatologically. For example:

23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand. 24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

The preterists would say this was fulfilled in AD 70. N.T. Wright has defended the preterist position on this entire chapter in Jesus and the Victory of God.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

I asked a friend of mine what his eschatological opinions were, and he gave me some string of statements, starting with "If you were a student of history, then you would know..." and listed some events that paralleled my limited recollections of events described in Revelation.

Is there some good argument in favor of partial preterism? Were many of the events described in the book really fulfilled by the end of the first century?

The answer to your question depends on how faithful you wish to be to the scripture.

The more you care about fidelity to the text the more likely you are to hold to (partial)Preterism.

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

See Sproul's "The Last Days According to Jesus". Seems to me it all hinges on a pre-70 A.D. authorship of Revelation.

I'll be sure to check it out! I love R.C. Sproul; he's very clear and easy to read while still knowledgeable and not "dumbed-down".

Originally Posted by KMK

BTW, when I hear statements like, "If you were a student of history, then you would know..." I assume that the person doesn't know what he is talking about. He is basically saying, "If you don't agree with me, you are an idiot." He is poisoning the well. This is a favorite tactic of the hyper-preterist.

Well, he is generally a pretty knowledgeable guy, so I would accept him as an authority in matters for the most part. Now, as for when he says "if you were a student of history...", does it really matter if in some sense he is poisoning the well? If these events he described really happened, and they are proper explanations of the events described in Revelation, then I guess he has a point, doesn't he?

Originally Posted by jd.morrison

Was Nero an anti-christ? MOST DEFINITELY! Was he the only one, absolutely not... You have Caligula, Hitler, Muhammad, ect. People of that sort who definitely fit the bill.

Well is the preterist statement that Nero was "the anti-Christ" or is it that he is that "man of perdition" (or whatever the term is) that Paul describes in Thessalonians, for example?

The preterist presents an argument that forces us to re-examine the scriptures within part of its historical context.

We just have to remember that the work is not yet complete...

Well I'm aware of the heresy involved in full preterism... I'm curious regarding the evidence for the claim that the majority of the stuff written in Revelation was fulfilled before the end of the first century.




For the record, what sort of eschatological position follows from partial preterism? What is the "kosher", "normal", "historically predominant" Reformed eschatological position?

I consider myself a partial-preterist, but the whole problem is that we are discussing things that are outside of the Bible. Whenever we discuss post-Biblical history and analyze Scripture then we are on human ground and we meet our fallibility and fallenness in our own interpretations. I tell people that I am also amillenial, but that how history pans out will show if my beliefs were justified!

I guess I'm pretty humbly partial-preterist, with a good side dish of "we'll see".

Its already been debated so I won't go into it, but I strongly recommend that you study the eschatology of the reformers and puritans. None of them were even partial preterists but held to what was called the "protestant view"; historicism. This is the reformed confessional view.

Originally Posted by Logopneumatika

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

See Sproul's "The Last Days According to Jesus". Seems to me it all hinges on a pre-70 A.D. authorship of Revelation.

Yes, but preterism also sees Mark 13 & the Olivette Discourse as being an account of the destruction of the Temple and not the eschaton. Normally, the latter part of this chapter is interpreted eschatologically. For example:

23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand. 24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

The preterists would say this was fulfilled in AD 70. N.T. Wright has defended the preterist position on this entire chapter in Jesus and the Victory of God.

What about this language do you think speaks about something other than the temple destruction?

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Originally Posted by KMK

BTW, when I hear statements like, "If you were a student of history, then you would know..." I assume that the person doesn't know what he is talking about. He is basically saying, "If you don't agree with me, you are an idiot." He is poisoning the well. This is a favorite tactic of the hyper-preterist.

Well, he is generally a pretty knowledgeable guy, so I would accept him as an authority in matters for the most part. Now, as for when he says "if you were a student of history...", does it really matter if in some sense he is poisoning the well? If these events he described really happened, and they are proper explanations of the events described in Revelation, then I guess he has a point, doesn't he?

No. He has absolutely no point whatsoever because of what Manley posts below:

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

Its already been debated so I won't go into it, but I strongly recommend that you study the eschatology of the reformers and puritans. None of them were even partial preterists but held to what was called the "protestant view"; historicism. This is the reformed confessional view.

There are more 'students of history' that are not preterists than are. The more correct statement would be, "If you were a student of history, you might come to all sorts of conclusions regarding end-times schema."

I recently came into Reformed theology after 20 years in Pentecostalism (Arminianism). I have studied eschatology extensively, and was chastised harshly by so many ministers for challenging their sacred cows concerning their beliefs on the endtimes.

I am not a dispensationalist. I guess I am more of a partial preterist than anything else. I do not have all the answers. i am reading scripture to find them out. But, as of now, I am what I am by the grace of God alone.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

I asked a friend of mine what his eschatological opinions were, and he gave me some string of statements, starting with "If you were a student of history, then you would know..." and listed some events that paralleled my limited recollections of events described in Revelation.

Is there some good argument in favor of partial preterism? Were many of the events described in the book really fulfilled by the end of the first century?

Dive into Riddlebarger asap....In my opinion he explains this issue very well and clearly. There is also audio you can listen to on him speaking on this matter. I usto be a partial preterist, well, now I know I really wasn't since I always had the inclination that 70a.d. fullfilled Matt. 24 but that there would be a future final fullfillment of Judgement that Matt. 24 speaks of but I never knew what to call that or if it even was sound exegetical hermenuetics until finally I heard Riddlebarger speak on it and it finally convinced me that Matt. 24 has a double fullfillment just like other OT prophecies that came to pass but also had its future fullfillment. Wasn't one of Christ office a Prophet? Was He not still in the Old Economy fullfilling its requirements for us? So I would agree with the partial preterist that it happened but where we would depart is, will it happen again? And I believe it will and has been actually...

Originally Posted by Roldan

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

I asked a friend of mine what his eschatological opinions were, and he gave me some string of statements, starting with "If you were a student of history, then you would know..." and listed some events that paralleled my limited recollections of events described in Revelation.

Is there some good argument in favor of partial preterism? Were many of the events described in the book really fulfilled by the end of the first century?

Dive into Riddlebarger asap....In my opinion he explains this issue very well and clearly. There is also audio you can listen to on him speaking on this matter. I usto be a partial preterist, well, now I know I really wasn't since I always had the inclination that 70a.d. fullfilled Matt. 24 but that there would be a future final fullfillment of Judgement that Matt. 24 speaks of but I never knew what to call that or if it even was sound exegetical hermenuetics until finally I heard Riddlebarger speak on it and it finally convinced me that Matt. 24 has a double fullfillment just like other OT prophecies that came to pass but also had its future fullfillment. Wasn't one of Christ office a Prophet? Was He not still in the Old Economy fullfilling its requirements for us? So I would agree with the partial preterist that it happened but where we would depart is, will it happen again? And I believe it will and has been actually...

I recently bought two books by Riddlebarger: the Anti-Christ one, and The Case for Amillennialism (or whatever it's called).


Thanks everyone!

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

I asked a friend of mine what his eschatological opinions were, and he gave me some string of statements, starting with "If you were a student of history, then you would know..." and listed some events that paralleled my limited recollections of events described in Revelation.

Is there some good argument in favor of partial preterism? Were many of the events described in the book really fulfilled by the end of the first century?

you should be a partial preterist. It is the only logical position to hold in light of the kingdom parables of Jesus, the statements, "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet," and "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

Kingdom parables are
" The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

"Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."

From the Prophets
"Daniel 2:44
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

From the Psalmist
Psalm 72:8
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.

From the above it is easy to see that the Messianic Kingdom begins in history, and grows, and finds its consummation at the 2nd coming.

Partial Preterism conforms with this in that the position holds that the end of the Old Covenant came in A.D 70 was a major discontinuous event in history and the great tribulation. Coming exactly on the heels of the great tribulation is the church triumphant, glorious and expanding.

History proves this in that there are more Christians alive today than there were in the first century. The Bible is the most common book in the whole world. The Messianic Kingdom is marching on.

Partial Preterism is the only position that makes eschatological sense. Either the Holy Spirit through the Church will triumph under the direction of Christ on the throne or the Holy Spirit through the Church will be conquered under the direction of Christ on the throne. There is no middle ground, only Christians who don't have the guts to stand up and be counted.

I am all with you on the:

Coming exactly on the heels of the great tribulation is the church triumphant, glorious and expanding.

History proves this in that there are more Christians alive today than there were in the first century. The Bible is the most common book in the whole world. The Messianic Kingdom is marching on.

But that is more a Post-Millennial position than a Partial-Preterist one.

Does partial preterism necessitate postmillennialist eschatology?

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

History proves this in that there are more Christians alive today than there were in the first century. The Bible is the most common book in the whole world. The Messianic Kingdom is marching on.

Partial Preterism is the only position that makes eschatological sense. Either the Holy Spirit through the Church will triumph under the direction of Christ on the throne or the Holy Spirit through the Church will be conquered under the direction of Christ on the throne. There is no middle ground, only Christians who don't have the guts to stand up and be counted.

Thank you for the stirring post, Keon. Just a few questions:

What is your definition of 'Christian'?

Also, amils and premils all agree that the church, through Christ, will triumph don't they?

Is it really true that all amils and premils don't have guts?

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Does partial preterism necessitate postmillennialist eschatology?

Nope.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Does partial preterism necessitate postmillennialist eschatology?

No.

Well known preterist (& ARP pastor) Jay Adams has writen in defense of the (orthodox) preterist view, and he is amil.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

I asked a friend of mine what his eschatological opinions were, and he gave me some string of statements, starting with "If you were a student of history, then you would know..." and listed some events that paralleled my limited recollections of events described in Revelation.

Is there some good argument in favor of partial preterism? Were many of the events described in the book really fulfilled by the end of the first century?

Be an Historicist. That way, you'll have all the bases covered.

Theognome

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

you should be a partial preterist. It is the only logical position to hold in light of the kingdom parables of Jesus, the statements, "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet," and "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

Kingdom parables are
" The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

"Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."

From the Prophets
"Daniel 2:44
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

From the Psalmist
Psalm 72:8
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.

From the above it is easy to see that the Messianic Kingdom begins in history, and grows, and finds its consummation at the 2nd coming.

Grace and Peace my brotha from Crooklyn, I mean Brooklyn!! lol jk

But seriously, the Amil will agree with you that Christ Kingdom begins in history, and grows, and finds its consummation at the parousia or second coming, BUT where in the context of the passages does it necessitate a PHYSICAL kingdom? I can just as easily present a Amillenial exegesis of these passages and claim its "easy" to see and very easily assert that this is a spiritual kingdom. I assume that you are a posty so I can see why you would read your postmil presuppostion into the text but if you want to continue this on anotha thread, I'm game.

Partial Preterism conforms with this in that the position holds that the end of the Old Covenant came in A.D 70

Hmmm, I was under the impression from the NT that the Old Cov. ended at Christ's inauguration of the New Cov. sacrament of the Lord's supper but I'm open to correction.

Coming exactly on the heels of the great tribulation is the church triumphant, glorious and expanding.

Again I was under the impression that Christians left and hid in the mountains as Christ teachings instructed from Matt 24. Also would you call the gross murders, persecutions, and torchers of Christians for 300+ yrs after 70a.d the Church Triumphant or the Church Militant?

History proves this in that there are more Christians alive today than there were in the first century. The Bible is the most common book in the whole world. The Messianic Kingdom is marching on.

Actually that just proves that the Church(wheat) continues to grow, but lets not forget the tares.

Partial Preterism is the only position that makes eschatological sense. Either the Holy Spirit through the Church will triumph under the direction of Christ on the throne or the Holy Spirit through the Church will be conquered under the direction of Christ on the throne. There is no middle ground, only Christians who don't have the guts to stand up and be counted.

Amen!!! This is not a Partial Pret. OR a Postmil distinctive though. And Im not sure who holds to the Church being conquered or maybe thats just the way you look at it


Blessings

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

I asked a friend of mine what his eschatological opinions were, and he gave me some string of statements, starting with "If you were a student of history, then you would know..." and listed some events that paralleled my limited recollections of events described in Revelation.

Is there some good argument in favor of partial preterism? Were many of the events described in the book really fulfilled by the end of the first century?

you should be a partial preterist. It is the only logical position to hold in light of the kingdom parables of Jesus, the statements, "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet," and "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

Kingdom parables are
" The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

"Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."

From the Prophets
"Daniel 2:44
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

From the Psalmist
Psalm 72:8
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.

From the above it is easy to see that the Messianic Kingdom begins in history, and grows, and finds its consummation at the 2nd coming.

Partial Preterism conforms with this in that the position holds that the end of the Old Covenant came in A.D 70 was a major discontinuous event in history and the great tribulation. Coming exactly on the heels of the great tribulation is the church triumphant, glorious and expanding.

History proves this in that there are more Christians alive today than there were in the first century. The Bible is the most common book in the whole world. The Messianic Kingdom is marching on.

Partial Preterism is the only position that makes eschatological sense. Either the Holy Spirit through the Church will triumph under the direction of Christ on the throne or the Holy Spirit through the Church will be conquered under the direction of Christ on the throne. There is no middle ground, only Christians who don't have the guts to stand up and be counted.

Have you studied historicism? I agree that PP makes sense compared to futurism but I don't think its wise to say the eschatology of all protestantism until the 20th century makes no eschatalogical sense.

[quote=KMK;541718]

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

Also, amils and premils all agree that the church, through Christ, will triumph don't they?

not in history. They believe that the Kingdom will be insignificant and failing until a future return of the Lord. The kingdom parables are at odds with such a view. The kingdom begins small then grows. This indicates progression and conquest through history, not insignificance until the 2nd coming. The 2nd coming in the kingdom parables is the apotheosis of the church triumphant, not the rescue of a failing church.

As for standing up and being counted, I will give it that some Christians are ignorant of the presuppositions of their eschatological positions, but those who are the ones that simply don't want to stand up and be counted. There is no middle ground." Either the Holy Spirit through the Church will triumph under the direction of Christ on the throne or the Holy Spirit through the Church will be conquered under the direction of Christ on the throne. There is no middle ground, only Christians who don't have the guts to stand up and be counted.

-----Added 2/5/2009 at 08:18:31 EST-----

[quote=Roldan;541780]

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

Grace and Peace my brotha from Crooklyn, I mean Brooklyn!! lol jk

But seriously, the Amil will agree with you that Christ Kingdom begins in history, and grows, and finds its consummation at the parousia or second coming, BUT where in the context of the passages does it necessitate a PHYSICAL kingdom? I can just as easily present a Amillenial exegesis of these passages and claim its "easy" to see and very easily assert that this is a spiritual kingdom. I assume that you are a posty so I can see why you would read your postmil presuppostion into the text but if you want to continue this on anotha thread, I'm game.





Blessings

There is physicality to the kingdom. People are saved, and people are sanctified. This inevitably manifests itself in a Christian culture. There is no escaping it. I came to the reformed faith and I started teaching my son his catechism. I started buying certain books for him, I started teaching him how to pray. He in turn developed a sense of justice and would upbraid his cousins when they do wrong. The kingdom has physicality.

1. A person is saved. This impacts the family institution.

2. The family institution impacts the ecclesiastical institution.

3. The ecclesiastical institution impacts the civil institutions, commercial and academic institutions.

ps. I will continue this later this evening.

-----Added 2/5/2009 at 07:59:01 EST-----

Originally Posted by Roldan

Hmmm, I was under the impression from the NT that the Old Cov. ended at Christ's inauguration of the New Cov. sacrament of the Lord's supper but I'm open to correction.




Again I was under the impression that Christians left and hid in the mountains as Christ teachings instructed from Matt 24. Also would you call the gross murders, persecutions, and torchers of Christians for 300+ yrs after 70a.d the Church Triumphant or the Church Militant?



Actually that just proves that the Church(wheat) continues to grow, but lets not forget the tares.


Amen!!! This is not a Partial Pret. OR a Postmil distinctive though. And Im not sure who holds to the Church being conquered or maybe thats just the way you look at it


Blessings

1. Concerning when the Old Covenant passed, I do agree with you, but the Old Covenant officially passed when the temple was destroyed thereby ending in finality all animal sacrifices.

2. The Church was and is triumphant. Pagan Rome fell and is no more. The more persecutions pagan rome implemented upon the church the more the church numbers grew. Persecutions and martyrdom were the best advertisement and recruiting material for the church. It was way better than those army commercials.

3. Wheat and tares grow together but that in no way means that the tares are more powerful than the wheat. Here is Daniel 7 14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

15I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me.

16I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.

17These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

18But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

It doesn't matter the tares/beasts, the saints will possess the kingdom. Church triumphant.

How does this relate to partial preterism? Because the Church triumphant comes after the tribulation as per Revelation. The growth of the Church after a.d 70 and the fall of the roman empire necessitates that the great tribulation is in the pass and not the future.

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

There is no middle ground, only Christians who don't have the guts to stand up and be counted.

I've got no problem with preterism per se, (except for the fact that the whole scheme hinges upon an early date of Revelation) but I don't understand your quote above.

Are you saying there are preterists who refuse to 'stand up and be counted', or that anyone who is not a preterist is refusing to 'stand up and be counted'? Are you saying that everyone throughout history who does not agree with preterism is a coward?

KMK I forgive many of my brethren who are ignorant. But my wrath is reserved for those who have studied all the eschatological systems of thought comprehensively and still hold to historicism or premillenialism.

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

KMK I forgive many of my brethren who are ignorant. But my wrath is reserved for those who have studied all the eschatological systems of thought comprehensively and still hold to historicism or premillenialism.

I used to be a partial preterist, the biggest difficulty I have is that all the reformed confessions confess that Pope is the Antichrit, but preterists cannot.

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

KMK I forgive many of my brethren who are ignorant. But my wrath is reserved for those who have studied all the eschatological systems of thought comprehensively and still hold to historicism or premillenialism.

I guess its a pretty good thing that we historicists aren't too worried about your wrath. Again, you are being very arrogant to have wrath for all the reformers, the writers of the LBCF 1689 and the WCF, nearly all protestantism until the 20th century, and many people on the PB.

Also, why are you placing historicism and premillenialism at odds? Post, Pre, and amillennial views can all be held while being historicist. Historicism is at odds with futurism and preterism (including partial).

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

I guess its a pretty good thing that we historicists aren't too worried about your wrath. Again, you are being very arrogant to have wrath for all the reformers, the writers of the LBCF 1689 and the WCF, nearly all protestantism until the 20th century, and many people on the PB.

Also, why are you placing historicism and premillenialism at odds? Post, Pre, and amillennial views can all be held while being historicist. Historicism is at odds with futurism and preterism (including partial).

I have no problems with the reformers holding their view of the Pope being the antichrist. I will confess that they were ignorant in part. On this issue I take the position of G.I Williamson who holds to the WCF whilst still seeing that they err in reference to eschatology. Einwechter, Schwertly and others also hold this position. G.I Holford wrote an excellent little track also.

Scholarship has proven that the Book of Revelation was a Pre A.D 70 document. Scholarship has also proven that the book primarily centers around the destruction of Jerusalem. And no mental gymnastics can make "This Generation" mean otherwise.


Again I don't have wrath for the reformers. I have wrath for those of the 21st century that are privy to all the scholarship and still reject it. Heck even my boss an unbeliever knows that 666 is Nero. The 21st century Christian has the privilege of looking back on 2000 years of Christian History, writings and scholarship. I consider it cowardly for them to intentionally hold to imperfect doctrines that have been cleared up merely because they want to fit into a 16th and 17th century mold.

-----Added 2/6/2009 at 11:16:43 EST-----

Originally Posted by YXU

I used to be a partial preterist, the biggest difficulty I have is that all the reformed confessions confess that Pope is the Antichrit, but preterists cannot.

Careful reading of the text shows that Anti Christ and "The Beast" are not interchangeable terms. "Man of Sin" can possibly be interchangeable with "The Beast", but I see no solid support to justify Anti Christ being interchangeable with The Beast. The context that John used the AntiChrist terminology in specifically refers to gnosticism. That being said, the Pope/ Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh.

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

I guess its a pretty good thing that we historicists aren't too worried about your wrath. Again, you are being very arrogant to have wrath for all the reformers, the writers of the LBCF 1689 and the WCF, nearly all protestantism until the 20th century, and many people on the PB.

Also, why are you placing historicism and premillenialism at odds? Post, Pre, and amillennial views can all be held while being historicist. Historicism is at odds with futurism and preterism (including partial).

I have no problems with the reformers holding their view of the Pope being the antichrist. I will confess that they were ignorant in part. On this issue I take the position of G.I Williamson who holds to the WCF whilst still seeing that they err in reference to eschatology. Einwechter, Schwertly and others also hold this position. G.I Holford wrote an excellent little track also.

Scholarship has proven that the Book of Revelation was a Pre A.D 70 document. Scholarship has also proven that the book primarily centers around the destruction of Jerusalem. And no mental gymnastics can make "This Generation" mean otherwise.


Again I don't have wrath for the reformers. I have wrath for those of the 21st century that are privy to all the scholarship and still reject it. Heck even my boss an unbeliever knows that 666 is Nero. The 21st century Christian has the privilege of looking back on 2000 years of Christian History, writings and scholarship. I consider it cowardly for them to intentionally hold to imperfect doctrines that have been cleared up merely because they want to fit into a 16th and 17th century mold.

-----Added 2/6/2009 at 11:16:43 EST-----

Originally Posted by YXU

I used to be a partial preterist, the biggest difficulty I have is that all the reformed confessions confess that Pope is the Antichrit, but preterists cannot.

Careful reading of the text shows that Anti Christ and "The Beast" are not interchangeable terms. "Man of Sin" can possibly be interchangeable with "The Beast", but I see no solid support to justify Anti Christ being interchangeable with The Beast. The context that John used the AntiChrist terminology in specifically refers to gnosticism. That being said, the Pope/ Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh.

Proven? As far as I know, most scholars don't believe in a pre 70 AD writing of Revelation. No offense, but what great new information has come out in the glorious 20th (and 21st) centuries that make it possible for our generation to know the great secrets of eschatology that all of our forefathers missed? It's ridiculous to say that we have more understanding and insight than the reformers and puritans. You need to adjust your tone in this. You have a right to your position but you are insulting the confessions by treating their writers as ignorant children and you are insulting many people who hold to those confessions on the Puritan Board.

The use of the "antichrist" texts is a dodge. All you argue is that we shouldn't refer to the "man of sin" as "the antichrist" as 2 Thess. 2 is one of the key texts that proves historicism in proving that the "man of sin" is the office of the Papacy.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

Proven? As far as I know, most scholars don't believe in a pre 70 AD writing of Revelation. No offense, but what great new information has come out in the glorious 20th (and 21st) centuries that make it possible for our generation to know the great secrets of eschatology that all of our forefathers missed? It's ridiculous to say that we have more understanding and insight than the reformers and puritans. You need to adjust your tone in this. You have a right to your position but you are insulting the confessions by treating their writers as ignorant children and you are insulting many people who hold to those confessions on the Puritan Board.

The use of the "antichrist" texts is a dodge. All you argue is that we shouldn't refer to the "man of sin" as "the antichrist" as 2 Thess. 2 is one of the key texts that proves historicism in proving that the "man of sin" is the office of the Papacy.

1. Most Scholars believe the Post A.D 70 dating because of Ireneaus.

2. The internal evidence proves likewise.

3. Scholars holding to the post A.D 70 dating didn't come from scholarship but from lazines and easy acceptance of the Ireneaus text. Proof is that there are no anti post A.D 70 scholarship. This issue wasn't one of debate, it was one of easy acceptance. I would go easy on these scholars because the reformers were operating under great persecution of the Roman Catholic Church hence it was easy to assume that they were in the "Great Tribulation", and that the "Pope" was the Man of lawlessness spoken of in the scriptures. In principle the Pope was a Beast and a man of lawlessness who was persecuting them. In principle they did endure persecution and tribulation. But the persecution and tribulation was not that which was spoken of in the Book of Revelation neither that which was spoken of in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13.

4. The Prophecies of Daniel, Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 disproves a historical approach to eschatology.

5. Revelation is simply John's Matthew 24.

6. Kenneth Gentry's Dating of the Book of Revelation has once and for all put the issue of dating to rest.

7. The first century Christians did not have a historicist approach to prophecy but one of imminence as it relates to the destruction of the Old Testament Covenant.

8. As per the reformers I greatly respect them but they erred as it relates to eschatology where it concerns the things that were supposed to happen after the resurrection.

9. My pointed words were to those who have been privy to 2000 years of Christian history and exceptional scholarship to still hold that the Pope is the Antichrist.

10. Antichrist vs Man of Sin vs The Beast is not a text dodge. The Antichrist is not the Man of Sin, and the Anti Christ and the Man of Sin is not the Beast. The Bible makes this plain. Any confusing of the categories is poor exegesis.

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

Proven? As far as I know, most scholars don't believe in a pre 70 AD writing of Revelation. No offense, but what great new information has come out in the glorious 20th (and 21st) centuries that make it possible for our generation to know the great secrets of eschatology that all of our forefathers missed? It's ridiculous to say that we have more understanding and insight than the reformers and puritans. You need to adjust your tone in this. You have a right to your position but you are insulting the confessions by treating their writers as ignorant children and you are insulting many people who hold to those confessions on the Puritan Board.

The use of the "antichrist" texts is a dodge. All you argue is that we shouldn't refer to the "man of sin" as "the antichrist" as 2 Thess. 2 is one of the key texts that proves historicism in proving that the "man of sin" is the office of the Papacy.

1. Most Scholars believe the Post A.D 70 dating because of Ireneaus.

2. The internal evidence proves likewise.

3. Scholars holding to the post A.D 70 dating didn't come from scholarship but from lazines and easy acceptance of the Ireneaus text. Proof is that there are no anti post A.D 70 scholarship. This issue wasn't one of debate, it was one of easy acceptance. I would go easy on these scholars because the reformers were operating under great persecution of the Roman Catholic Church hence it was easy to assume that they were in the "Great Tribulation", and that the "Pope" was the Man of lawlessness spoken of in the scriptures. In principle the Pope was a Beast and a man of lawlessness who was persecuting them. In principle they did endure persecution and tribulation. But the persecution and tribulation was not that which was spoken of in the Book of Revelation neither that which was spoken of in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13.

4. The Prophecies of Daniel, Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 disproves a historical approach to eschatology.

5. Revelation is simply John's Matthew 24.

6. Kenneth Gentry's Dating of the Book of Revelation has once and for all put the issue of dating to rest.

7. The first century Christians did not have a historicist approach to prophecy but one of imminence as it relates to the destruction of the Old Testament Covenant.

8. As per the reformers I greatly respect them but they erred as it relates to eschatology where it concerns the things that were supposed to happen after the resurrection.

9. My pointed words were to those who have been privy to 2000 years of Christian history and exceptional scholarship to still hold that the Pope is the Antichrist.

10. Antichrist vs Man of Sin vs The Beast is not a text dodge. The Antichrist is not the Man of Sin, and the Anti Christ and the Man of Sin is not the Beast. The Bible makes this plain. Any confusing of the categories is poor exegesis.

1.Preterist scholars don't because they are preterist. They change the accepted dating for their theological benefit.

2. No it doesn't. Preterists read their view into the text.

3. That's a cop out. The reformers living under Papal persecution actually qualifies them to speak to the subject. Also, the main text that supports historicism (2 Thess 2) doesn't even mention persecution but describes the spiritual wickedness of the "man of sin" which was the basis for the reformers view. Also, you don't explain why the rest of the history of protestantism also held to historicism. You are pitting 1 centuries scholarship against the entire history of protestantism.

4. What? For you to say the passages of scripture you mentioned disprove historicism then you are out of the arena of the "modern scholarship" argument and now insulting the reformers and writers of the confessions. They had these same scripture passages in their day. These passages only prove preterism if you pressupose that preterism is right.

5. No it's not. Again you're presupposing your view.

6. No he hasn't.

7. Yes, and Paul corrected them of that error in 2 Thess.

8. I know you feel that way but I believe they were not in error.

9. What about people like Hodge that had 1900 years of scholarship? Or the Puritans who had 1600? Why is the 20th century so perfect? I think the exact opposite. 20th century biblical scholarship is filled with error.

10. You said in your earlier post that the "man of sin" may be the beast.

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 02:58:28 EST-----

I don't have a serious problem with you holding your view. The problem is that you insult people who hold to the confessions. I'm pretty sure that is against the rules on the PB. I'm open to correction if I'm wrong. If you hold a dissenting view from the confessions on certain things its ok, but you certainly can't insult the confessional view like you are doing.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

1.Preterist scholars don't because they are preterist. They change the accepted dating for their theological benefit.

2. No it doesn't. Preterists read their view into the text.

3. That's a cop out. The reformers living under Papal persecution actually qualifies them to speak to the subject. Also, the main text that supports historicism (2 Thess 2) doesn't even mention persecution but describes the spiritual wickedness of the "man of sin" which was the basis for the reformers view. Also, you don't explain why the rest of the history of protestantism also held to historicism. You are pitting 1 centuries scholarship against the entire history of protestantism.

4. What? For you to say the passages of scripture you mentioned disprove historicism then you are out of the arena of the "modern scholarship" argument and now insulting the reformers and writers of the confessions. They had these same scripture passages in their day. These passages only prove preterism if you pressupose that preterism is right.

5. No it's not. Again you're presupposing your view.

6. No he hasn't.

7. Yes, and Paul corrected them of that error in 2 Thess.

8. I know you feel that way but I believe they were not in error.

9. What about people like Hodge that had 1900 years of scholarship? Or the Puritans who had 1600? Why is the 20th century so perfect? I think the exact opposite. 20th century biblical scholarship is filled with error.

10. You said in your earlier post that the "man of sin" may be the beast.

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 02:58:28 EST-----

I don't have a serious problem with you holding your view. The problem is that you insult people who hold to the confessions. I'm pretty sure that is against the rules on the PB. I'm open to correction if I'm wrong. If you hold a dissenting view from the confessions on certain things its ok, but you certainly can't insult the confessional view like you are doing.

1. Partial Preterist didn't change the date. The date was not firmly established, it was merely accepted from the Ireneaus script. Partial Preterists simply evaluated the evidences pro and contra. The evidences point to a pre A.D authorship. If the present day historicists are clinging to Ireneaus to justify a post a.d 70 authorship they are in serious trouble.

2. Internal Evidences such as the temple standing, the mark of the beast coinciding with NERO, the first century perspective, and time texts that point to imminence is not reading into the text.

3. The reformers lived under Papal persecution and construe the Book of Revelation to mean that it refers to them. What about Christians in Iran, China, Eritrea and Pakistan? Then the Evangelical Dispy Christians believe the tribulation will be about them in America. Historicism does not give an objective standard to differentiate the great tribulation from other tribulation. Only partial preterism does because partial preterism takes the time texts seriously, "this generation shall not pass away".

4. Again I am not insulting the reformers. I have said they erred. My harsh words are reserved for those living in the 21st century that are privy to more information and still accept the reformers view on eschatology.


5. We all presuppose our views

6. Ken Gentry put the final nail in the coffin. I don't know how anyone could in good conscience hold a post A.D 70 authorship. But then again some Christians hold a 7 age theory of creation whilst the Bible plainly says 7 days.

7.

Keon, can you explain what Ken Gentry found to support the pre-70ad authorship of Revelation?

Great discussion, guys!

Keep it going...

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

1.Preterist scholars don't because they are preterist. They change the accepted dating for their theological benefit.

2. No it doesn't. Preterists read their view into the text.

3. That's a cop out. The reformers living under Papal persecution actually qualifies them to speak to the subject. Also, the main text that supports historicism (2 Thess 2) doesn't even mention persecution but describes the spiritual wickedness of the "man of sin" which was the basis for the reformers view. Also, you don't explain why the rest of the history of protestantism also held to historicism. You are pitting 1 centuries scholarship against the entire history of protestantism.

4. What? For you to say the passages of scripture you mentioned disprove historicism then you are out of the arena of the "modern scholarship" argument and now insulting the reformers and writers of the confessions. They had these same scripture passages in their day. These passages only prove preterism if you pressupose that preterism is right.

5. No it's not. Again you're presupposing your view.

6. No he hasn't.

7. Yes, and Paul corrected them of that error in 2 Thess.

8. I know you feel that way but I believe they were not in error.

9. What about people like Hodge that had 1900 years of scholarship? Or the Puritans who had 1600? Why is the 20th century so perfect? I think the exact opposite. 20th century biblical scholarship is filled with error.

10. You said in your earlier post that the "man of sin" may be the beast.

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 02:58:28 EST-----

I don't have a serious problem with you holding your view. The problem is that you insult people who hold to the confessions. I'm pretty sure that is against the rules on the PB. I'm open to correction if I'm wrong. If you hold a dissenting view from the confessions on certain things its ok, but you certainly can't insult the confessional view like you are doing.

1. Partial Preterist didn't change the date. The date was not firmly established, it was merely accepted from the Ireneaus script. Partial Preterists simply evaluated the evidences pro and contra. The evidences point to a pre A.D authorship. If the present day historicists are clinging to Ireneaus to justify a post a.d 70 authorship they are in serious trouble.

2. Internal Evidences such as the temple standing, the mark of the beast coinciding with NERO, the first century perspective, and time texts that point to imminence is not reading into the text.

3. The reformers lived under Papal persecution and construe the Book of Revelation to mean that it refers to them. What about Christians in Iran, China, Eritrea and Pakistan? Then the Evangelical Dispy Christians believe the tribulation will be about them in America. Historicism does not give an objective standard to differentiate the great tribulation from other tribulation. Only partial preterism does because partial preterism takes the time texts seriously, "this generation shall not pass away".

4. Again I am not insulting the reformers. I have said they erred. My harsh words are reserved for those living in the 21st century that are privy to more information and still accept the reformers view on eschatology.


5. We all presuppose our views

6. Ken Gentry put the final nail in the coffin. I don't know how anyone could in good conscience hold a post A.D 70 authorship. But then again some Christians hold a 7 age theory of creation whilst the Bible plainly says 7 days.

7.

1. No, the evidence doesn't point that way unless you need it to. Preterists need it to so they claim it.

2. 2 Thess 2 points to the fact that imminence was a wrong position. The Thessalonians held to imminence until Paul told them not to. Nero came nowhere near to fitting the criteria of the 2 Thess text. Also, just because the prophesies were written in the 1st century doesn't mean they have to be fulfilled in front of those who first received them. Most prophesies of the OT were not fulfilled until long after the initial hearers died. Also, how does the mark of the beast fit Nero??

3. No, they didn't construe anything because of persecution. I've already refuted that. The key texts that convinced them were not texts about persecution but about the false church leader who would claim the authority of God using false miracles. The persecution was less of an issue. Sometimes the "man of sin" persecutes and sometimes he doesn't but he always takes his seat in an apostate church and claims the authority of God.

4. I said you are insulting the reformers because this response you made was about the interpretation of biblical text not some new history book that came out. You made the claim that anyone who read certain passages should never believe in anything but partial preterism. The reformers read those passages and NONE of them held your view.

5. Then don't say something proves your view, say it corralates with your view. I have less of a problem with partial preterism than with that sort of rhetoric.

6. You not knowing how someone could hold to a post 70 AD writing does not mean there aren't good reasons to hold to it. If Gentry put the nail in the coffin then Grandma wouldn't still be in the kitchen. She's not even near the grave yard!