- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
This is the first time I have seen a Preterist go so far as to actually make the false claim that this is what Irenaeus said.
Irenaeus did mot use the word HE, as falsely represented here. He said "THAT," not "HE." His exact words were:
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign. (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, Book 5, Chapter 30, paragraph 3. From Ante-Nicean Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, in the American edition ed. By Cleveland Coxe, D.D, reprinted Peabody, 1996, vol 1.) This is thought to have been written between 186 and 188 A.D.
Preterists claim that the words That was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domations reign. Refer to John, rather than to his vision. But when we consider the point Irenaeus was making, we see that this cannot be correct. He told us why he had decided not to name the Antichrist. It was because if that knowledge was needed at that time, it would have been announced in the apocalyptic vision. Further, it is important to realize that Irenaeus did not say, for he was seen no very long time since... He said For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day. using the word that, rather than he, clearly shows that Irenaeus was saying that Johns vision had been so recent that if there was any need to know the Antichrists name at that time, it would have been announced in the vision. This clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus was referring to the time the Revelation was written, not to the last time John had been seen.
Pretending the word "that" means "he" is not only dishonest. Is is based on very bad doctrine. For it makes it seem that the wording of scripture was simply a matter of choice of the various human writers involved. This amounts to a denial of the verbal inspiration of the scriptures. For if a mere man, even the man who was used to write the scriptures, could pronounce positively in regard to such a thing, then the scriptures were only the words of men, and not of God. The fact that the scriptures were not simply the words of such men, even the prophets, can be clearly seen by two scriptures about the prophecies in the Bible.
Daniel reported what he was told, and then said, "Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, 'My lord, what shall be the end of these things?' And he said, 'Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.'" (Daniel 12:8-9)
Again we read, "Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into." (1 Peter 1:10-1)
Both of these scriptures plainly tell us that the prophet (or prophets) did not understand what they were writing about. They had to study the words, just like anyone else. This is because the words were not their own, but God's. So John, as an individual and a mere human, could not have pronounced in this subject positively after the book was finished, as God gave it to him.
Upvote
0
