I wasn't very familiar with preterism, so I looked it up and found this (among other sites):
http://www.lvcm.com/preterism/preteristview.htm
Preterists here will have to chime in and say if they think this is a valid presentation of the preterist view. I have no way of knowing. And this page lacked a lot of information I feel is necessary to fully evaluate the preterist view.
But I felt that this presentation was filled with inconsistencies in hermeneutics and exegesis. For one thing, much of the argument tends to pivot on this verse:
The point made is that Jesus would have had to return before some of those standing there died.
Then the presentation goes on to explain how it could be possible that there would be no more death...
IMO, this seems to undermine the first argument. Why is it necessary to interpret the first as physical death, but permissible to explain away the second reference to death as spiritual?
Jesus could easily have been saying that some of those standing there (those who were saved) would not taste death before they saw Jesus coming into His kingdom because they were now alive spiritually once more and would not die again -- they were going to "fall asleep" (often used to described the saved who die physically).
That's just one example, but the whole argument seems to jump back and forth between literal and symbolic interpretation of the text. In general, however, it seems to take a literal view of the text to establish the foundation and then invokes a symbolic interpretation whenever it is needed to explain the contradictions and problems. IMO that's usually a dead giveaway that you have to start over and see if your premise is flawed.
So am I missing something here, or is this page simply an inadequate presentation?
http://www.lvcm.com/preterism/preteristview.htm
Preterists here will have to chime in and say if they think this is a valid presentation of the preterist view. I have no way of knowing. And this page lacked a lot of information I feel is necessary to fully evaluate the preterist view.
But I felt that this presentation was filled with inconsistencies in hermeneutics and exegesis. For one thing, much of the argument tends to pivot on this verse:
Matthew 16:27-28 (NKJV) "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
The point made is that Jesus would have had to return before some of those standing there died.
Then the presentation goes on to explain how it could be possible that there would be no more death...
Most believers today reading John's words speaking of the conditions in the New heaven and earth, "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death", understand "death" to be physical. Therefore, they look for a future fulfillment of this verse. But the immediate result of man's sin was not physical death but spiritual death -- separation from God. The Lord said to Adam, "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." He didn't die physically that day, but he did die spiritually. Time-- in the day, defines nature-- spiritual death! It is spiritual death that is destroyed in the New Covenant not physical death.
IMO, this seems to undermine the first argument. Why is it necessary to interpret the first as physical death, but permissible to explain away the second reference to death as spiritual?
Jesus could easily have been saying that some of those standing there (those who were saved) would not taste death before they saw Jesus coming into His kingdom because they were now alive spiritually once more and would not die again -- they were going to "fall asleep" (often used to described the saved who die physically).
That's just one example, but the whole argument seems to jump back and forth between literal and symbolic interpretation of the text. In general, however, it seems to take a literal view of the text to establish the foundation and then invokes a symbolic interpretation whenever it is needed to explain the contradictions and problems. IMO that's usually a dead giveaway that you have to start over and see if your premise is flawed.
So am I missing something here, or is this page simply an inadequate presentation?