What's So Heretical About Preterism?

[ayin jade]

 

 

There are 10,000 different variations of Christianity.  Most are welcomed here no problem, even some stuff that is weird by my standards.  Once the Preterist view is brought up, for one it gets erased in my experience.  Would someone care to enlighten me how this view cannot coincide with being an acceptable Christian?

Read Worthy's statement of faith SOF, and then tell me why it gets erased (usually after some discussion).

I am not thatgood with computers and finding things on websites. Where is this statement of faith located? I would like to read it.

 

 

http://www.worthynetwork.com/statement-of-faith

[FreeinChrist]

Being more of a partial partial preterist who holds to Covenant Views and not being a Dispensationalist; I would remind everyone that their is a little more proof for an early writing of the Book of Revelation than for a later date. (Yes I meant to type partial twice)

 

Eternal Evidence

Syriac Vulgate Bible (sixth century):

States, The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.  (Opening Title for the Book of Revelation).

 

The Muratorian Canon (AD 170)

...the blessed Apostle Paul following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name. 

 

John too, indeed, in the Apoclaypse, although he wrote to only seven churches, yet addresses all.

ANF5:603

 

Clement of Alexandria

States that John was in Patmos at the time of the Tyrant and only one Roman Emperor earned that name Nero.   Clement also tells that the Teaching of the Apostles was completed at the time of Nero.

 

These are just a few example from outside the Book of Revelation as to it dates.

 

 

Internal Evidence

The Temple was still standing (Revelation 11)

 

As note in The Muratorian Canon, John wrote to seven Churches, if John wrote to all the Churches around 95AD, it would have been 9 or more.  Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake around 60 AD, and on their own not accepting help from the Roman Empire, which would help to understand Revelation 3:17.

 

It seems to be that Revelation 2:2 states that there were other Apostles, if this is the case, it had to before 70 AD, as except for John all other Apostles where dead by 95 AD.

 

The Book of James is know to have been written before 70 AD.  And this great Apostle leave a gem of proof for the earlier date of the writing of Revelation.

Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love Him.

James 1:12

And where is the only place in the NT where we read about the Lord Jesus promising the crown of life?

Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a CROWN OF LIFE.

Revelation 2:10

 

This by no means proves that the Book of Revelation was written at the earlier date, but in my estimation it does show very good reason to believe for the earlier date.

 

Just passing in short over the other comments that Shiloh made:

We also see Israel having a future as stated in Romans 11:25-26; which is after the time of the fullness of the Gentiles.

 

I would also think James states that the Church Age was foretold (see Acts 15:13-17; and Amos 9:11-12; Isaiah 42:6).

 

 

Although I do not agree with the Dispensationalist, I know many in the group love God with all their hearts and even though we have disagreements, it is not because we don't love and try to honor the Bible we just understand it differently.

[OakWood]

Can somebody help me here with reference to Matthew 24?

I don't believe that all of Matthew 24 has been fulfilled, but I do believe that the reference to the destruction of the temple did actually occur in 70 AD. If you read Matthew 24, Jesus refers to this separately and before the disciples ask him further questions.

 

So if I believe that the destruction of the temple has already occurred, does that make me a partial preterist?

[OneLight]

No, not in my book.  It will take more than just one verse to be seen as a partial preterits.

[OakWood]

No, not in my book.  It will take more than just one verse to be seen as a partial preterits.

 

That's what I thought. I always believed that the definition of a preterist was somebody who believed that all Biblical prophecies had been fulfilled by 70 AD. Other than that, I hadn't thought about it much. I'm not a preterist, so I haven't taken much notice of who they are or what they are.

I just wanted to check that.

[Guest shiloh357]

Can somebody help me here with reference to Matthew 24?

I don't believe that all of Matthew 24 has been fulfilled, but I do believe that the reference to the destruction of the temple did actually occur in 70 AD. If you read Matthew 24, Jesus refers to this separately and before the disciples ask him further questions.

 

So if I believe that the destruction of the temple has already occurred, does that make me a partial preterist?

What makes a person a Preterist is that they believe that the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was the second coming of Jesus.  They believe that when the temple was destroyed by the Romans that it was God final rejection of Israel and the Jews and that references to Jesus bodily return were metaphors for the destruction of the temple. 

 

For this reason, a preterist believes that we are living in the "new heavens and "new earth"  today.  That Revelation 21-22 is talking about the church age.  It is a view that is preposterous and simply unworkable.

[Larry H]

On 7/7/2014 at 2:20 PM, OneLight said:

No, not in my book.  It will take more than just one verse to be seen as a partial preterits.

Greeting brother

How about 101 verses ?☺️?

http://www.preteristcosmos.com/preterism101.html

[OneLight]

9 hours ago, Larry H said:

Greeting brother

How about 101 verses ?☺️?

http://www.preteristcosmos.com/preterism101.html

Greetings Larry,

People have taken verses out of context for years.  Not surprised partial preterits does the same.

[JohnD]

My experience with preterists is that they are arrogant and obstreperous.

They are long on extremely subjective passages in the Bible and totally ignore passages that disprove their beliefs.

"Soon" "near" "at hand" according to whom?

Man whose life span is but a wisp?

Or God who is eternal?

2 Peter 3:8 (AV)
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

And the seeing of the Lord's day before tasting death include the mount of transfiguration, the post resurrection appearances of the Lord, the

appearances of Jesus to Paul and to John the Revelator.

God is not finished with the Jews (Jeremiah 31:31 - 37)

God is not hyper-Calvinist (John 3:16-18 WHOSOEVER will...)

etc. etc. etc.

The preterist then applies harem scare 'em hermeneutics and comes up with an invisible return of Jesus Christ to earth 

JUST LIKE THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES do.  ← a thing they HATE being told / reminded of. 

Matthew 24:24–28 (AV)
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

This very passage is what won my half brother from Kingdom Hall theology. 

Praise God!

[JohnD]

I tried overlooking preterist beliefs with several people I used to stand arm in arm with street witnessing and protesting Jehovah's Witness

conventions at the Jack Murphy Stadium  (San Diego) until I discovered their {version} of Christianity is not at all about peripheral beliefs but core.

And it infests every aspect of their theology (eventually if not initially).

That's why the Worthy Christian ban on it is spot on.