Amill or Premill works that respond to partial preterism?

[erickson]

Can anyone suggest works that are critical of partial preterism?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Partial Preterists are usually Amill; what you may be looking for is more of Historicist and Futurist critiques of Partial Preterism since Partial Preterism is contrasted with Historicism and Futurism rather than the subject of the millennium itself. I could even see someone being a Premill Partial Preterist.

That said, I don't know many off the top of my head.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[erickson]

Partial Preterists are usually Amill

I'm sure some of them are.

Out of interest, can you give names of notable partial preterists who are Amill?

since Partial Preterism is contrasted with Historicism and Futurism rather than the subject of the millennium itself.

This is true, but Amills can be critics of preterism. For example:


"Preterism is the heresy which maintains that most or all of the eschatological events prophesied in Scripture have been fulfilled already in the past. Postmillennialists, who envisage a "Golden Age" for the Church in which the world is Christianised, consign the New Testament prophecies concerning the Great Tribulation and persecution of the Church, the fearful and widespread apostasy from the truth, and the rise of Antichrist to the past. These events were fulfilled, say the postmillennialists, in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Romans. Some are moderate, partial or inconsistent preterists. Full, extreme, consistent or hyper-preterists relegate not only those prophecies to the past, but they also teach that all New Testament prophecy, including the resurrection of the dead (which they, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, spiritualise), the final judgment and even the Second Advent of Jesus Christ occurred in A.D. 70. There is therefore no future coming of Christ at the end of the world. We are already in the new heavens and the new earth in which righteousness dwells (II Peter 3:13). This world will probably go on forever, or, if it does not last eternally, the Bible has nothing to tell us about the future.


How are preterism and gangrene related? This paper will expose the preterism of modern postmillennialists, especially the Reconstructionists. We will concentrate our attention on the Reconstructionist movement because the men of that movement are the most prolific authors in the Postmillennial camp and the most vocal opponents of Reformed Amillennialism, which they deride as pessimistic eschatology or "pessimillennnialism." Representative figures in that movement are Gary North, Gary DeMar, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., and David Chilton. This paper will argue that their preterism is spreading like a gangrene through the body of Reformed truth, devouring vital doctrines and key texts, leading eventually and inexorably to full-blown hyper-preterism. For now modern postmillennialists are resisting hyper-preterism1 but this paper will contend that eventually their system must collapse under its own inconsistency. It must succumb to the gangrene of the Philetian and Hymenaean heresy...."


"Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure" by Martyn McGeown
(I'm not giving a link because I'm not allowed.)

 

[Biblewriter]

Can anyone suggest works that are critical of partial preterism?

One of the best refutations of partial preterism is to look at what the church was actually teaching about end time prophecy, only a few generations after the time partial preterists think the Revelation was fulfilled.

I made a detailed study of what these early Christian writers said, and presented it in Christian Forums here

http://www.christianforums.com/t7542790-21/

These men wrote within a few generations after partial preterists imagine these things were fulfilled, but all of them (that is, all of them whose works survived to the present day) were still looking for them to be fulfilled at a time in their own distant futures. and even two hundred years later, Jerome wrote in the fifth century that "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

 

[eclipsenow]

One of the best refutations of partial preterism is to look at what the church was actually teaching about end time prophecy, only a few generations after the time partial preterists think the Revelation was fulfilled.

I made a detailed study of what these early Christian writers said, and presented it in Christian Forums here

http://www.christianforums.com/t7542790-21/

These men wrote within a few generations after partial preterists imagine these things were fulfilled, but all of them (that is, all of them whose works survived to the present day)

Nice little qualification there, because we know there were other views quite early on. Justin Martyr lived from AD 103 to 165 and was a Premil. (NOT a Dispensationalist Premil, but a Covent Premil). Here he confirms that he is a Premil, but notes there are MANY also believe otherwise!

I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and[believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Roberts-Donaldson)

Chapter LXXX.

Hi Erickson,
in answer to your question there IS an Amil critique of Partial Preterism, a brilliant little book that I just read. It's called "Revelation Unwrapped" by John Richardson. Only about $6 with free postage worldwide!
Revelation Unwrapped: Commentary on Revelation : John Richardson : 9780952489429

Until I read this book I would have called myself a Reformed Calvinist Sydney Anglican Partial Preterist Amillennial. Now I'm more of a Reformed Calvinist Sydney Anglican Symbolist Amillennial. In other words, rather than seeing Revelation as a tricky encoding of how the Romans will treat the Jews, as a Partial Preterist historian commentator had once influenced me, I now see Revelation as primarily about the gospel to a suffering church, written in largely recognisable biblical symbols. It's actually not that hard! (Especially when we drop a Dipsy Dispensationalist mindset that makes it hard to read anything in Revelation clearly).

Be aware, it does not spend a lot of time critiquing Partial Preterism by virtue of tearing it to shreds, but more by discussing Revelation's imagery and showing how it fits within the context of biblical imagery. In other words, it critiques Partial Preterism by showing one doesn't need a Phd in Roman history to understand Revelation; the bible interprets it for you.

 

[erickson]

Nice little qualification there, because we know there were other views quite early on. Justin Martyr lived from AD 103 to 165 and was a Premil. (NOT a Dispensationalist Premil, but a Covent Premil). Here he confirms that he is a Premil, but notes there are MANY also believe otherwise!

OK, but why would we think that comment has anything to do with preterism? Maybe it's just talking about some Christians who deny a literal 1000 years?

Hi Erickson,
in answer to your question there IS an Amil critique of Partial Preterism, a brilliant little book that I just read. It's called "Revelation Unwrapped" by John Richardson. Only about $6 with free postage worldwide!

Thanks for your suggestion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Partial Preterists are usually Amill; what you may be looking for is more of Historicist and Futurist critiques of Partial Preterism since Partial Preterism is contrasted with Historicism and Futurism rather than the subject of the millennium itself. I could even see someone being a Premill Partial Preterist.

That said, I don't know many off the top of my head.

-CryptoLutheran

Huh?

 

[Biblewriter]

OK, but why would we think that comment has anything to do with preterism? Maybe it's just talking about some Christians who deny a literal 1000 years?

This is typical of the way this poster typically responds; emotionally, rather than logically. The quotation in question was:

“And Trypho to this replied, ‘I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? Or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?’
“Then I answered, ‘I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.’” (Dialogue with Tyrpho, by Justin Martyr, chapter LXXX.)

 

[eclipsenow]

OK, but why would we think that comment has anything to do with preterism? Maybe it's just talking about some Christians who deny a literal 1000 years?
Thanks for your suggestion.

Not necessarily Preterism, but Amillennialism. I was just replying to Biblewriter who tried to give the impression Premillennialism was the dominant early church belief. I was just showing that there were MANY others who did not hold to Premil beliefs.

For further reading there are a bunch of Phd's who studied the early church and their Premillennialism. One of them sponsored by a famous Dispensationalist, and his Phd student finds the historical documents suggest a balance of views!

In 1976 Alan Patrick Boyd, a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary began a challenging undertaking, writing a masters thesis whose goal was to establish the prophetic faith of the early church fathers. His professor, Dr. Charles Ryrie of Dallas Seminary fame had boldly written "Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church." But upon completing his thesis, Boyd concluded the following in response, "It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie's statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis [apostolic age through Justin Martyr]." [ 1] (Quoted by Bahnsen and Gentry, p. 235. [ 2] )


The Athanasian Creed and the Early Church: Clearly Amillennial

 

[Biblewriter]

Not necessarily Preterism, but Amillennialism. I was just replying to Biblewriter who tried to give the impression Premillennialism was the dominant early church belief. I was just showing that there were MANY others who did not hold to Premil beliefs.

We do not know of not even one writer from before the year 200 who was amillennial. It is true that Justin said there were many such persons in his time. But there were not many such writers. In fact, we do not know about even one. The medieval monks that purged church libraries of non-approved documents would not have discarded any such document. Since they were amillennial, they would have rejoiced to find such a document, and would have copied and re-copied it. The fact that no such document was preserved is evidence that they were unable to find even one such document.

Without even one exception, every Christian teacher we know about from before the year 200 was pre-millennial. This includes not only the ones whose writings were preserved, but those we know about. The absolutely oldest amillennial document we know about came from the third century. This is simple, absolute, and hard, fact.

So it is absolutely and undeniably true that "Premillennialism was the dominant early church belief." We know it was not the only early belief. Almost all the heresies still troubling the church rose up very early. But it was unquestionably the dominant early church belief.

That is why Jerome wrote in the fifth century that "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

There were church teachers before Jerome's time that taught otherwise, but he refused to even recognize them as "commentators of the Christian Church." That is, he was saying they were heretics. And if you check out the histories, you will soon realize that when the amills began to introduce their writings, they were condemned as heretics. They were not only accused of heresy. they were found guilty. It was not until later that their teachings began to be received, and not until much later that they became the predominant view of the church.

For further reading there are a bunch of Phd's who studied the early church and their Premillennialism. One of them sponsored by a famous Dispensationalist, and his Phd student finds the historical documents suggest a balance of views!

In 1976 Alan Patrick Boyd, a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary began a challenging undertaking, writing a masters thesis whose goal was to establish the prophetic faith of the early church fathers. His professor, Dr. Charles Ryrie of Dallas Seminary fame had boldly written "Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church." But upon completing his thesis, Boyd concluded the following in response, "It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie's statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis [apostolic age through Justin Martyr]." [ 1] (Quoted by Bahnsen and Gentry, p. 235. [ 2] )


The Athanasian Creed and the Early Church: Clearly Amillennial

The article you cite is seriously deceptive from beginning to end. Near the beginning it says "The early Church fathers … Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papius, admitted that there were many other Christians who were quite orthodox and not premillennial."

This is just short of an outright lie. I have studied everything Irenaeus said on the subject, looking for any comment about disagreements between early Christians, and he did not make any such statement. We have a grand total of ten fragments from the writings of Papias, and not even one of them makes any such statement. Justin was the only one who said any such thing.

After this comment, he continued with various comments that came from well into the fourth century. Although this qualifies as the early church from our point of view, it was approximately as long after the apostolic age (the real "early church") as the time since the United States gained independence from England!

In between, he attempted the blatantly dishonest tactic of pretending that chilism (what pre-millennialism was called at that time) originated with the teaching of the heretic Cerinthus. This evil man taught and practiced manifold sexual excesses. As a part of that teaching, he taught that these would take place in the millennium. But it is ridiculous to pretend that this was the origin of the doctrine of the millennium. It would have made no sense for Cerinthus to have invented a millennium for these excesses to take place in. It should be obvious to any thinking man that he would have put these in the millennium because that was something the church already believed in.

A future physical kingdom in this earth is prophesied in too many Old Testament places to count, and these prophecies are couched, not in apocalyptic terms, but in exceedingly plain language, even to the point of defining the physical boundaries of that kingdom. Then the Revelation explicitly says, six times over, that this period will last a thousand years.

Now we can argue all day as to whether or not these prophecies were intended to be taken literally. But they unquestionably exist. And there is absolutely zero doubt that the early church possessed the scriptures containing these prophecies. To pretend that the early church did not get the idea from these scriptures, but from the blasphemy of an heretic, goes beyond simple deception. It is an outrageous lie, pure libel, and nothing else.