(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.
Email this post to a friend
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Loading ...
14 responses so far ↓
1 preteristheresy // Dec 18, 2007 at 12:00 pm
You stated in this article that some do not accept Preterism becuase of its implications. “I’m afraid to begin exploring all the implications of this belief.”
What are the implications of Preterism?
How about placing ALL in the new heavens and earth or in the age to come, placing ALL in the new covenant by removing the present heavens and earth, or this present age, or the old covenant in 70ad. Placing the final judgment, parsouia, and the resurection in 70ad, thus removing judgment, parsouia, and resurection for those today. Making spiritual antitypes, more natural types, patterns and timelines. Making spiritual things mere past events. Focusing on the shadows and patterns and calling them the true substance, and making that which is spiritual and eternal secondary to the historical visible shadows.
And we should ignor these implications and accept preterism becuase . .
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/
2 Steve // Dec 18, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Firstly, my point was not about people who resisted preterism because of implications that they deemed untenable based on actual study and research, but those who are afraid that it might challenge some of their pet doctrines and seek to avoid the study and research. I suppose it would also include anyone who mistakes blindly parroting the view of the majority and his favorite Christian leaders for actually having good reasons to reject preterism.
Where in the world do you get this? No wonder you think it’s heresy! All three exist today, with the qualifications that there is no “final” judgment and the term “resurrection” has a somewhat more nuanced meaning than people such as yourself understand it. All these things are ongoing. Not all full preterists are “hyper-”preterists in the way you are generalizing. Sure, there are a few who are in effect universalists, but this is easily refutable by most full preterist teaching.
The “last judgment” is nowhere in Scripture called the “last judgment”. This is an inference based on presupposed futurism. At the time of the emptying of Sheol as a result of the judgment in AD 70, the living and the those who had died before that time were judged based on their faithfulness to God. As for what’s happened since then, “it is appointed unto man once to die, and after that, the judgment”: we are all judged on death. What’s controversial about that? The “Parousia”, which literally means “presence”, is fulfilled daily: “…and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” History is not linear, but cyclical. The Hebrews never thought of history culminating in a single event, but there were many Days of the Lord. There was a Day of the Lord which was to have universal soteriological implications, but there was no reason this had to be the last of all history. In fact, I think the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem were another beginning of human history.
What really bothers me, and the reason I am not going to go out of my way to answer your missives hereafter, is that you 1) call my view heresy — which historically means that you do not consider me a Christian, 2) all you do is ridicule, and do not offer any of your own answers to the questions preterists pose, such as the issue of time statements, which are the obvious heart of preterism, or Jesus’ myriad parables and teachings about the imminent Kingdom of God in reference to the apostate Jewish leadership.
3 preteristheresy // Dec 19, 2007 at 9:51 am
Steve,
Does one need to be a hyper-preterist (by your definition) to teach doctrines that seed of Universalism? If someone is teaching Universalism, though they deny it, would they be a hyper preterist? What is your definition of a hyper-preterist? Maybe you can narrow this down to a specific group based on what they teach. How can one distinguish between those who are extreme, and the ones who are not. Are there any indicators, ie the resurection, parousia, and judgment are past events . . . would that be considered a Hyper-Preterist?
It seems to me that most, as I have shown on my site, continue to focus on THE LINE in 70ad and the quotes I use demonstrate what I believe Hyper-Preterism is. This IMO results in Universalism. If the old passes away in 70AD, all are in the New. Saying things are ONGOING, is not a Preterist position. I do not say ongoing, but believe there to be a revealing or manifesting that point to the true which is outside of time, history. This is not ongoing, but is in reality what Parousia means. It has no beginning nor does it end.
A preterist position, sees past events, and complete fulfillment in history. If something is spiritual, or eternal, IMHO it can not be fulfilled in a historic timeline. And the historic timelines are shadows and patterns anyway. So what actually is fulfilled in 70ad it if is all spiritually to be understood?
Saying anything ends or begins in 70AD is hyper-preterism to me. Becuase the implications are ALL are in the New (fill in the blank).
BTW, Please see Webster’s definition of Heresy which I posted under Heresy on my site. I am using that strict definition, not to point fingers at people but to point out doctrines that are WRONG. No where in this definition does it say one is unchristian.
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/
4 ElShaddai Edwards // Jan 11, 2008 at 10:36 am
Steve, I wanted to ask you if you’ve spent much time studying Jürgen Moltmann? I have a couple of his books on order, but the descriptions of his views on eschatology seem very appealing: a focus on new creation rather than end times, focus on the Holy Spirit as expanding the current Kingdom, etc.
Also, that he’s labeled this view as “Christian eschatology”, whereas it seems like the bulk of “end times” scripture in the Bible is “Jewish eschatology”, the end of the first covenant age, that is, of Law, as you’ve often reminded me.
In the flood of millennial hype books recently, it seems like Moltmann’s work might be the “something different” book to go along with some of the stuff you’ve challenged me with here, inasmuch as he also is looking at “the hope of now” as opposed to The End Of The World.
5 graham // Jan 11, 2008 at 1:36 pm
El Edwards,
I’m not sure that Moltmann could be classified as looking at “the hope of now” as opposed to The End Of The World. He’s certainly not focussing upon a cataclysmic end any time soon. However, his view completely depends upon something happening (a cosmic improvement, if nothing else). Our life ‘now’ then becomes a case of bringing the future into the here and now.
I love Molmann’s stuff and held to it (theologically, if not exegetically), before becoming a preterist. The only way I can see of integrating it into a preterist system is if is we swap his use of “future” for something like “divine reality as it now is”.
I’m not sure if I’m making any sense here?
6 ElShaddai Edwards // Jan 11, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Thanks for the clarification, graham. It’s rather hard to tell some of the details from the summary reviews on Amazon! From your comments, it sounds likes he’s something of a post-millennial futurist?
7 graham // Jan 14, 2008 at 4:52 pm
‘From your comments, it sounds likes he’s something of a post-millennial futurist?’
Actually, going by those classifications, he’d actually be pre-mil. However, he doesn’t sound like any premillennialist that I’ve ever heard!
Personally, there are few living theologians that I pay more attention to.
8 ElShaddai Edwards // Jan 16, 2008 at 10:11 am
Ah, I glossed over the cosmic improvement being an event outside of our efforts, not the result of them (”bringing the future into the here and now”).
In any case, Amazon just delivered his books (The Coming of God, In The End - The Beginning), so I’ll look forward to diving in!
9 ElShaddai Edwards // Jan 17, 2008 at 7:32 am
I’m wondering, Steve, are there any exegetical rebuttals of full preterism that you’re aware of? I was just browsing Keith Mathison’s book on post-millennialism and he includes a rebuttal of FP based on creedal tradition and the authority of the Holy Spirit to the Church. As far as I can tell, this is the standard rebuttal. Has anyone published a critique of FP strictly from the text?
10 Steve // Jan 17, 2008 at 8:09 am
You know, I’d like to see one. Any time I hear/read an exegetical debate, the FP (in my opinion) clearly comes out on top. I really am looking forward to seeing a good exegetical critique. Is this because there is no good exegetical basis for refuting FP, because I haven’t run across it, or because no one has taken it seriously enough to bother with one? I think it’s one of the first two (and I personally suspect the first), since lately people like Mark Hitchcock and Mathison’s book have gotten wide attention from a number of platforms.
11 graham // Jan 17, 2008 at 10:10 am
There are a couple of multi-authored books that I haven’t read, which I believe contain exegetical arguments.
There’s also thingstocome.org which is one of the better anti-preterist sites out there. It contains some exegetical essays.
12 ElShaddai Edwards // Jan 17, 2008 at 10:23 am
I’ve posted the question on Kim Riddlebarger’s blog, but I doubt he’ll take it up - he generally sticks to amillennialism questions.
Thanks, Graham - I’ll take a look at thingstocome.org and see what they have to say.
13 Steve // Jan 17, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Let me know if you find any cogent arguments. I haven’t seen anything worth responding to yet.
14 ElShaddai Edwards // Jan 31, 2008 at 2:03 am
Surprise, surprise, you can read Mr. Riddlebarger’s response to my question here: http://tinyurl.com/yr2fty . As expected, he recommends “When Shall These Things Be?”, especially the essays by Strimple and Hill.
Leave a Comment