- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,373
- 515
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
On another forum, a brother seemed discouraged by my attempt to remove myself from the label Preterist, and identify myself with the Futurist label. Here is how I see the issue, as I explained it to him....
I don't think this subject is just an exercise in finding places to argue. Explaining just what Preterism is boils down to historical realities which, if they are to be referred to, must be recognized properly. It's like discussing the RCC without knowing the difference between Catholics and Protestants. The idea is not just to find differences to argue about, but to really understand the historical background of this relationship.
So Preterism is an historical theological system that hoped to focus prophecy on the time immediately surrounding Christ. One part of that is the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But it was really a system that tried to focus nearly *all prophetic interpretation* on that time period, and not just the Olivet Discourse. It integrates the book of Revelation, the Millennium, the 70th Week of Daniel, and the Olivet Discourse all into that time period making most prophecy something fulfilled in the past.
So when we admit that the 70th Week of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in 70 AD or thereabouts, we are acknowledging an important part of Preterism, yes. But it is not historical Preterism in the sense that it was a system that included the book of Revelation in that time period, as well. If we leave out the part about the book of Revelation, the Antichrist, etc. then is it really Preterism?
I would say no, because no longer is nearly all prophetic interpretation centered on the earthly ministry of Jesus and that time period. The book of Revelation is much larger than just Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse. Without the interpretation of the book of Revelation being involved, and perhaps the future of Israel's Hope, we don't really have Preterism as it existed historically.
What is really left after Revelation and Israel are stripped from prophecy fulfilled in Jesus' time is a different kind of eschatological system--a kind of historicism, as such. So if we strip from any system of prophetic interpretation some of its basic components, we no longer have that system of interpretation. If we strip off of Preterism the belief that Revelation and Israel were rooted in the time period of Christ's earthly ministry, we no longer have Preterism.
But a fundamental part of Preterism did exist in the Early Church in the form of belief that Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the time of Christ and his generation. And I would fully endorse that part of Preterism, though as much as one may wish me to endorse all of Preterism I cannot do that. I'm Premillennial, I believe in a future national Salvation of Israel, and I believe a real Antichrist is coming and will reign for 3.5 years, presiding over a spiritually-bankrupt Europe.
Finally, I would point out that although I would label myself a Futurist, I'm not perhaps fully on board Futurism either. Just as Preterism tries to define all prophetic fulfillment at the time surrounding the Cross, so Futurism tries to see most all prophecy as having its ultimate fulfillment in the future.
I do agree it's critical to see all prophecy as fulfilled at the Cross, and all prophecy consummated in the future. However, prophecies should be differentiated between those which have been completely fulfilled in the past, and those strictly relegated to future fulfillment.
So unlike many Futurists I do not see many prophecies they think are future as truly future. Many Futurists see the Olivet Discourse, and Dan 7-12 as primarily Antichristian and future. By contrast, I see Dan 8 and 11-12 as mostly about Antiochus 4, although there are portions that are future, such as the 3.5 years of Dan 12. And as I said, I do not see the 70th Week of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse as being primarily future prophecies.
So let's distinguish the Futurist and Preterist positions, but let's just acknowledge what is essential in each position in order to apply that label. Seeing the Olivet Discourse and the AoD as being fulfilled in the past does not adequately define Preterism, since it excludes the book of Revelation, Israel, and a literal Millennium.
And let's recognize that even with an historical interpretation of the 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse, Futurism recognizes that Revelation is largely future with a literal Antichrist, may or may not embrace the future national Salvation of Israel, and may or may not recognize a literal Millennium.
Historical beliefs about the 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse does not render Futurism as anything more than peculiarities within the Futurist school, which acknowledges both past and future prophecies of various kinds. But Preterism is less tolerant, requiring not just a past fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, but more, a system that defines most all of biblical prophecy as fulfilled in the time of Christ. I do not adhere completely to that position, although a sympathize with some of its critical elements.
If I'm to define Preterism properly, I should probably define Futurism properly, as well? Since Futurism began with Ribera and Louis of Lacunza, it has to be recognized that at its core Futurism sees the Antichrist as a future apostate leader of the world. He is not a past Catholic Pope, Rome, or Hitler. He is the endtime Antichrist.
Beyond this, prophecies can be acknowledged as fulfilled in the past, as long as Antichrist is held to be a future phenomenon. Since I believe in a future Antichrist, I'm clearly a Futurist, and not primarily a Preterist. I hold to only parts of the mainstream of these two positions.
I don't think this subject is just an exercise in finding places to argue. Explaining just what Preterism is boils down to historical realities which, if they are to be referred to, must be recognized properly. It's like discussing the RCC without knowing the difference between Catholics and Protestants. The idea is not just to find differences to argue about, but to really understand the historical background of this relationship.
So Preterism is an historical theological system that hoped to focus prophecy on the time immediately surrounding Christ. One part of that is the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But it was really a system that tried to focus nearly *all prophetic interpretation* on that time period, and not just the Olivet Discourse. It integrates the book of Revelation, the Millennium, the 70th Week of Daniel, and the Olivet Discourse all into that time period making most prophecy something fulfilled in the past.
So when we admit that the 70th Week of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in 70 AD or thereabouts, we are acknowledging an important part of Preterism, yes. But it is not historical Preterism in the sense that it was a system that included the book of Revelation in that time period, as well. If we leave out the part about the book of Revelation, the Antichrist, etc. then is it really Preterism?
I would say no, because no longer is nearly all prophetic interpretation centered on the earthly ministry of Jesus and that time period. The book of Revelation is much larger than just Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse. Without the interpretation of the book of Revelation being involved, and perhaps the future of Israel's Hope, we don't really have Preterism as it existed historically.
What is really left after Revelation and Israel are stripped from prophecy fulfilled in Jesus' time is a different kind of eschatological system--a kind of historicism, as such. So if we strip from any system of prophetic interpretation some of its basic components, we no longer have that system of interpretation. If we strip off of Preterism the belief that Revelation and Israel were rooted in the time period of Christ's earthly ministry, we no longer have Preterism.
But a fundamental part of Preterism did exist in the Early Church in the form of belief that Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the time of Christ and his generation. And I would fully endorse that part of Preterism, though as much as one may wish me to endorse all of Preterism I cannot do that. I'm Premillennial, I believe in a future national Salvation of Israel, and I believe a real Antichrist is coming and will reign for 3.5 years, presiding over a spiritually-bankrupt Europe.
Finally, I would point out that although I would label myself a Futurist, I'm not perhaps fully on board Futurism either. Just as Preterism tries to define all prophetic fulfillment at the time surrounding the Cross, so Futurism tries to see most all prophecy as having its ultimate fulfillment in the future.
I do agree it's critical to see all prophecy as fulfilled at the Cross, and all prophecy consummated in the future. However, prophecies should be differentiated between those which have been completely fulfilled in the past, and those strictly relegated to future fulfillment.
So unlike many Futurists I do not see many prophecies they think are future as truly future. Many Futurists see the Olivet Discourse, and Dan 7-12 as primarily Antichristian and future. By contrast, I see Dan 8 and 11-12 as mostly about Antiochus 4, although there are portions that are future, such as the 3.5 years of Dan 12. And as I said, I do not see the 70th Week of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse as being primarily future prophecies.
So let's distinguish the Futurist and Preterist positions, but let's just acknowledge what is essential in each position in order to apply that label. Seeing the Olivet Discourse and the AoD as being fulfilled in the past does not adequately define Preterism, since it excludes the book of Revelation, Israel, and a literal Millennium.
And let's recognize that even with an historical interpretation of the 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse, Futurism recognizes that Revelation is largely future with a literal Antichrist, may or may not embrace the future national Salvation of Israel, and may or may not recognize a literal Millennium.
Historical beliefs about the 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse does not render Futurism as anything more than peculiarities within the Futurist school, which acknowledges both past and future prophecies of various kinds. But Preterism is less tolerant, requiring not just a past fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, but more, a system that defines most all of biblical prophecy as fulfilled in the time of Christ. I do not adhere completely to that position, although a sympathize with some of its critical elements.
If I'm to define Preterism properly, I should probably define Futurism properly, as well? Since Futurism began with Ribera and Louis of Lacunza, it has to be recognized that at its core Futurism sees the Antichrist as a future apostate leader of the world. He is not a past Catholic Pope, Rome, or Hitler. He is the endtime Antichrist.
Beyond this, prophecies can be acknowledged as fulfilled in the past, as long as Antichrist is held to be a future phenomenon. Since I believe in a future Antichrist, I'm clearly a Futurist, and not primarily a Preterist. I hold to only parts of the mainstream of these two positions.
