The Dangerous Lie of Preterism

[Retrobyter]

On 7/28/2018 at 4:22 PM, shiloh357 said:

As a rule, moderate preterists tie their belief system to a postmillennial vision in which the church becomes the new “Israel” and must bring in the Kingdom on earth in order to prepare the world for the return of Christ.  Most preterists believe the following:
 

1. Nero was the Antichrist.  There will be no future individual Antichrist.

2. The Tribulation Period is already over.  It occurred when the Roman army besieged Jerusalem in AD 66-70.

3. Christ “returned” in the clouds in AD 70 to witness the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army.

4. God replaced Old Testament Israel with the Church.  Therefore, all the biblical promises to Israel belong to the Church.  

5. Armageddon already happened in AD 70.  The fall of “Babylon” refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

6. Satan is already bound in the abyss and cannot hinder the spread of the Gospel.  Revelation 20 has already been fulfilled.

7. We are already in the Millennium, but it is not literal.  Some preterists equate the entire Church Age as the Millennium.  The 1,000 years are not literal but figurative, even though they are mentioned six times in Revelation 19-20.
 

The basic assumptions of preterism rest on passages that refer to Christ coming “quickly” (Revelation 1:1), or “this generation will not pass” (Matthew 24:34).  They insist these must be related to and limited to the first century.  By contrast, premillennialists believe that Christ’s coming is imminent and; therefore, could occur at any moment.  Darrell Bock of Dallas’ Theological Seminary counters the preterist view, observing: “What Jesus is saying is that the generation that sees the beginning of the end, also sees its end.  When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag on for many generations.  It will happen within a generation.”

Fallacious Reasoning

Preterists insist they are defending the Bible by making its prophecies fulfilled in the past.  That way, they can’t be accused of making false assumptions about the future.  In other words, their interpretive methodology might be called: “back up and punt!”  By confining predictive prophecy to a past fulfillment they eliminate any real need for eschatology.  However, their fallacious reasoning and flimsy logic leaves them supporting a series of ridiculous conclusions that fly in the face of the whole history of biblical interpretation.

For example, the idea that Satan is already “bound” is clearly contradicted by Peter’s statement: “the devil, as a roaring lion, wanders about seeking whom he may devour” (I Peter 5:8).  The Apostle Paul refers to Satan as the “prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2).  One would have a difficult time convincing Peter and Paul that Satan was already bound by the power of the cross.  If Satan is bound today, why are the nations still deceived?

If we are already in the Millennium, why is there still war in the world?  When did the lion lay down with the lamb?  And when did the nations beat their weapons into plowshares?  If the 1,000 years are only symbolic, then is the reign of Christ only symbolic?  If God broke His everlasting covenant with Israel, how do we know He will not break His covenant of everlasting life with us?

If God is finished with ethnic Israel, why did Paul ask: “Has God cast away his people?”  And why did he respond so emphatically, “God forbid!” (Romans 11:1)?  Why did Paul ask of Israel, “Have they stumbled that they should fall?”  And why did he respond again: “God forbid!” (Romans 11:11)?  Why did Paul state that “blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles comes” (Romans 11:25)?  Why did he believe, “all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:26) if God is already finished with Israel?

If the Church replaces Israel and becomes the Kingdom of God on earth, why did the disciples ask Jesus at the ascension: “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).  That was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to tell the disciples that He was finished with Israel and that they were the new “Israel.”  But He did not!  He simply told them it was not for them to know that time which the Father has predetermined for Israel to have the kingdom (Acts 1:7).

http://www.according2prophecy.org/Preterism.html

Shalom, shiloh357.

I figured it was late enough into the thread to post.

Shalom, shiloh357.

I have allowed myself to be called a "Partial Preterist" in the past, but no more. I consider myself a "Partial Futurist." Like R.C. Sproul in one respect, I DO believe that most of the Olivet Discourse has been fulfilled, particularly in 66-69 A.D. prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. HOWEVER, significant sections have NOT been already fulfilled, and we await the return of our Lord to fulfill them (which, btw, did NOT occur in 70 A.D.)

Regarding the Revelation, I do NOT believe that most of it has been fulfilled. In fact, I only believe that the letters to the seven churches of Asia were for those churches in Asia during Yochannan's (John's) lifetime. They are not to be interpreted as representative churches of the various time periods since the first century until the coming of our Lord, nor are they representative of churches in today's time period. Any similarities are purely coincidental. They were written to the seven pastors or messengers (aggeloi) of those churches and not to anyone else. While we may glean applications from these letters, they were NOT written TO us in any way. The order of these letters was in order for how a postman would deliver them on a route from Patmos.

Regarding your points above,

1. I do believe that Nero was AN antichrist, that is, a person against the Christ or the Messiah, and I believe that the term "antichrist" was as applicable in the first century as it is today. It is a more nebulous term as Yochannan used it in 1 John and 2 John. As far as the person predicted to come, he should either be called "the beast" (Revelation 13-19) or "the man against the Torah" (2 Thessalonians 2), who will indeed be AN antichrist, but should not be so labeled.

2. I have a much different view on the tribulation period than most. I believe that it is neither 7 years long nor 3.5 years long, but has been going on for the last almost-2000 years. There shall be a CULMINATION - a "balloon payment," so to speak - at the end of that period, but that the final week of Daniel's 70 weeks of years is already half over and the second half occurs at the END of the tribulation period. I believe the "tribulation" is synonymous with the "Time of Ya`aqov's (Jacob's) Trouble," which started in the first century when Yeshua` pronounced the Jews of Jerusalem "DESOLATE," partially fulfilling Daniel 9:27, and will continue until the "consummation." The two halves of the seventieth week represent times when the Kingdom is offered to Israel. The first time, it was rejected by the leadership of Y'hudah, the Messiah's tribe.
The second time, it will be accepted in desperation by Jews who are facing annihilation by Israel's neighbors.

3. The Messiah ("Christ") has not yet returned in the clouds, as the two men promised at His ascension, putting that portion of the Olivet Discourse in the future, and since this "immediately follows the tribulation," the tribulation, which started in the first century A.D., is still active until the Lord's Return.

4. God has absolutely NOT "replaced Old Testament Israel with the Church!" If anything is true, it's that the churches are EXTENSIONS of "Old Testament Israel." That is, they shall be grafted into the Kingdom of God over which David was a king. The Messiah Yeshua`, the son of David, the HEIR of the Kingdom to be its King,  will rule over that Kingdom as David and Shlomoh (Solomon) did, but His physical reign shall not begin until He has returned. He is of the seed of David and will be the ULTIMATE Messiah - the ULTIMATE One who is anointed to be King, for we read, "and of His kingdom there shall be no end."

5. Armageddon (a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew phrase, "Har Megiddown," or "Mountain of Megiddown," the place now known as "Tel Megiddo" SE of Haifa, Israel) is the culmination of the Messiah's RESCUE of the children of Israel, when Yeshua` destroys those enemies that attack Israel with the attempt of its annihilation. Thus, it hasn't happened, yet.

6. HaSatan (Hebrew for "The Enemy") has NOT yet been chained and thrown into the Abussos ("Abyss" or "Bottomless [Pit]"). As you said above, "...because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." (1 Peter 5:8.)

7. We are NOT "already in the Millennium! And, it most certainly IS literal! It will be the FIRST THOUSAND YEARS of Yeshua`s reign as King, called in Israel, haMelekh. However, there will still be war in the world, because Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 that the Messiah  When did the lion lay down with the lamb?  The nations have not yet beaten their weapons into plowshares  The reign of Christ will  be literal and REAL! God will keep His everlasting covenant with Israel, and He will keep His covenant of everlasting life with us.

[Guest shiloh357]

23 hours ago, Willie T said:

As I have said, without reading the book, you actually haven't the slightest idea what he wrote, and what "proofs", both pro and con, he presented.  It is actually one of the most comprehensive compilations of the views of both sides I had yet read.

I understand Preterism just fine without reading anyone else's book.  I didn't say that I know what he wrote.   But Preterism is what it is, and there is no good defense for it.   It is false teaching no matter how it is dressed up and made to look plausible.

[Willie T]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

I understand Preterism just fine without reading anyone else's book.  I didn't say that I know what he wrote.   But Preterism is what it is, and there is no good defense for it.   It is false teaching no matter how it is dressed up and made to look plausible.

Just repeating:  You have not the slightest notion what is inside the pages of that book. 

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Willie T said:

Just repeating:  You have not the slightest notion what is inside the pages of that book. 

Just Repeating:   I don't need to know what is in his book to understand Preterism. And I don't care what is in his book.   Preterism is still false doctrine, no  matter who promotes it.

[Still Alive]

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:51 PM, shiloh357 said:

Those who argue for an early date (pre-70AD) for the book of Revelation argue that Nero was the Antichrist.   Here is why that is simply not possible.

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:"
(2Th 2:8)

When does this passage say the Antichrist will be destroyed?   At the Lord's coming.  Now, Preterists claim that the Lord's coming happened in 70 AD at the destruction of the Temple.   So when did Nero die?   Nero died in 68 AD.   How does Paul say the Antichrist would die?  The Lord will destroy him.  How did Nero die? He committed suicide.  So, that on its own precludes Nero from being the Antichrist.

Daniel 9:27 tells us that the Antichrist will confirm a 7-year peace treaty with Israel.  Nero never did that.  

The Antichrist according to II Thess. 2:4 is supposed to take his seat in the Temple of God in Jerusalem. Nero was never even in Jerusalem.
 

What parts of Revelation can be taken literally, and why?

I need to make it clear, BTW, that I agree with you that many events in biblical prophesy have not yet transpired, one of which is the bodily return of Christ.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Still Alive

[Guest shiloh357]

13 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

What parts of Revelation can be taken literally, and why?

All of it can be taken literally.  

That means that symbolism is to be taken literally as symbolism, when the text tells you that symbolism is being employed.  What many people do, without warrant, make whole book symbolic and interpret it that way all the way through. 

Taking it literally means you take the historical aspects literally as history.   You interpret proleptic prophecy literally as proleptic prophecy.   Don't fall into the trap of making it all allegorical. 

 

[Willie T]

A little fun for all you so fearful of opening any book you have not been told to...  Here is a small paragraph from the book under discussion:

"Second, there seems to be a subtle indication that the one designated “666” is somehow serpent-like.  Not only is Satan himself called a “serpent” in Revelation (Rev. 20:2), but his cohort, the Beast, is so designated.  The sound of the number 666 even in English sounds hauntingly like a serpent’s chilling hiss.  (Go ahead, say 666 out loud) In the Greek the situation is the same.  The three letters serving as the number are: CHI, XI, STIGMA.  Phonetically their eerie sound is that of a serpent’s hiss.  What is more, the middle number-letter even has the appearance of writhing serpent."

Though some of you run from learning interesting little things like this, I like knowing I am a little more aware of things today than I was yesterday.  True, that new knowledge you now possess has nothing to do with gaining Salvation... but you are a bit wiser than you were just four seconds ago.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Willie T

[Still Alive]

16 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

All of it can be taken literally.  

That means that symbolism is to be taken literally as symbolism, when the text tells you that symbolism is being employed.  What many people do, without warrant, make whole book symbolic and interpret it that way all the way through. 

Taking it literally means you take the historical aspects literally as history.   You interpret proleptic prophecy literally as proleptic prophecy.   Don't fall into the trap of making it all allegorical. 

 

You sure have squishy definitions for some words.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Davida said:

When denominations or individuals start believing preterism semi- or full they start dismissing & reinterpreting large swaths of the Bible based upon their own errors & false spiritual beliefs. They imagine the Bible is allegorical and then bring in all sorts of false teachings after that. It's like a deck of cards....It is what I see happening. My x-minister taught that parts of Revelation already happened and the other parts were allegorical.  I was not saved through that denomination but was LOST & seeking the truth , because they did not preach the Full Gospel message which goes from Genesis---> Revelation.   

One of the biggest problems with Preterism is the insistence on using allegory as a tool of interpretation.  Allegory is not a form of interpretation.   Allegory is used to teach moral lessons and it takes biblical narrative and subjectively assigns values to the text in order to teach a lesson.  That is a valid use of it.  But Preterists and others use allegory to interpret the Bible and that is inappropriate.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Still Alive said:

You sure have squishy definitions for some words.

No, I don't.   I simply understand what "literal" means from a literary standpoint.    If I were to employ "literal" the way many people erroneously employ it then, when Jesus says of Himself, "I am the door..."   I would assume that that Jesus is a piece of wood with hinges.