Common objections to full preterism: below the surface

(Preterism is the belief that there are no prophecies in Scripture that await a fulfillment in the future. Hereafter I will use the term “futurist” to describe anyone who believes that there is a yet future fulfillment of prophecy, including partial preterists. Similarly, I will use “preterist/preterism” as ellipsis for “full preterist/preterism”.)

Now, I realize that some people aren’t even convinced of partial preterism yet. But to anyone willing to learn and analyze Scripture honestly, it is usually only a matter of time after presenting the preteristic framework that a futurist will become convinced that at least some Scriptures must have been fulfilled in AD 70.

Yet sometimes these hold out hope that only some of them were fulfilled, considering the principle of total fulfillment an overreaction. They want the best of both worlds.

Even after a cogent presentation of the arguments for preterism, objections understandably crop up. These objections come in two flavors: rational and sub-rational. This post will deal only with the latter.

Some objections are unvoiced, and are frequently accompanied by a queasy feeling in the stomach. These objections are usually never identified because they occur beneath the surface. Yet I contend that the sub-rational objection is the single greatest factor in the rejection of preterism. Let me be clear: I do not believe that just because you have not accepted full preterism that it is because of any of the following, since you may be an honest person with rational objections. But I would ask you to seriously ask yourself if any of these sound like you:

1a) This is too heavy. I need to stay on safe ground and stay away from anything that looks radical.

2a) This overturns something I’ve believed in all my life. I can’t have been wrong all that time.

3a) I will have egg on my face for having propagated futurism (by words, writings, life decisions, etc.).

4a) I may risk isolation and rejection by futurist friends/churches if I believe this.

5a) I may have to examine other beliefs more critically after this and that is uncomfortable.

Summary: I’m afraid to begin exploring all the implications of this belief.

At the heart of all these is an undervaluation of truth: Christians should place the highest premium on anything true, no matter the cost. By no means do I want to minimize the angst behind these objections; as for objection 4a, many preterist acquaintances of mine have been ostracized to differing degrees for their belief in preterism and I feel I will probably feel the brunt of that myself in the near future. But when you consider the persecution that Christians throughout the ages have undergone for the sake of the gospel, then raised eyebrows, head-shaking, and even some discontinued fellowship are hardly worth rejecting the truth of God over.

Note especially that the sub-rational arguments that I listed are predicated on the error in logic known as the appeal to consequence. “If A is true, B is true; I do not like the implications of B, therefore A must be false.” It is true that a belief must be tested thoroughly to see if it violates other truths, but to reject something based solely on the appeal to consequence is not sufficient logical evidence for rejection, and here’s why.

When looking at a belief system, you must look for something that is internally consistent. Too often we will reject a belief because of a current mistaken belief in a related field: what I mean is that if you listen to the presentation long enough, you may see that what you think is a truth that contradicts the proposed belief was really another misconception on your part and that the new belief will teach you something. If you were to tell a person living in the 16th century that you had a way of speaking to someone on another continent, they would likely discount your statement or judge you a sorcerer on the basis of a belief that such a possibility would necessarily be magical since voice-throwing (the telephone) would have violated natural law as understood at that time. But if his misconceptions were corrected and he were to understand the technology, he would be able to accept your statement. Ruling out a belief because it doesn’t match all your current beliefs begs the question of whether all your current beliefs are correct.

This is all simple, Logic 101 stuff. Regardless of this fact, these objections are almost definitely the single largest motivation for the rejection of preterism. Sub-rational objectionists dislike preterism because it violates some of their favorite beliefs and/or their comfort in not having to challenge their own beliefs. This should not be so.

When someone has one of the above objections, he may simply cover his ears and pretend that he never heard the evidence for preterism. But another common reaction is to seek out the nearest problem (usually a presupposition that preterism challenges) and use it as an excuse to dismiss preterism without honestly examining preterism’s response to the problem. In fact, although there are plenty of rational arguments against preterism, I still believe that the sub-rational objections are the largest factor because so often rational arguments are only sought as a way to protect their latent sub-rational objections.

Another reaction is to try to divest oneself of these objections and approach any lingering, rational objections with a healthy open-mindedness and a thorough dedication to truth as revealed in Scripture. I will talk about some of those rational objections in a later post, but remember that even the most airtight Scriptural and logical answers to rational objections will be insufficient for someone with lingering sub-rational objections.

Related posts:

1. Is full preterism a new doctrine? (revised) Who said this? But the things which took place afterwards, did our Saviour, from his foreknowledge as THE WORD or GOD, foretell should come to...
2. Does majority rule in theology? In this week’s installment of Theology Unplugged, a podcast I highly recommend, Reclaiming the Mind Ministries president Michael Patton made the following comments about full...
3. You contribute: is Jesus coming back? I’ve had a poll running for a couple months asking Undeception readers what topics they’re interested in seeing me address. I decided to give it...
4. The Millennium and the Resurrection of the Dead I am firmly indebted to Don Preston for his presentation on the Millennium at the 2004 Preterist Research Institute Conference for much of the layout...
5. The Sheep, the Goats, and the Judgment One of people’s hang-ups about full preterism is that they feel that the Great White Throne Judgment sounds too momentous to apply to less than...