Lutherans: Preterist or Historicist?

[FireDragon76]

Are Lutherans committed to Historicism in prophecy?

I am a preterist as far as the Olivet Discourse goes, agreeing with the arguments presented by N.T. Wright. I also believe the Harlot of Revelation is Jerusalem in the 1st century. In fact now that I understand Wright's arguments it is as clear as day (and it also torpedo's the liberal critics who insisted Jesus was a failed prophet). This is pretty common among Catholics, going back to the Counter-Reformation, but not as common among Protestants. Hugo Grotius, the liberal Dutch Reformed theologian and humanist, was the first Protestant preterist.

In some churches it's such a hot-button issue that it can get you in big trouble for having preterist beliefs and not believing Rome is going to control the world and be the seat of the Anti-Christ. So I'm curious to know how modern Lutherans approach this issue and biblical scholarship.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think I can say I'm not a preterist, and neither is Lutheranism. However, I don't see that it has to be an either/or. Further, I'm always reluctant to consent to "isms" until I know more of what the OP has in mind.

 

[FireDragon76]

The reason I engage with this question is for the purpose of apologetics. Because I think the alternative is to admit that Jesus was a failed prophet (as Schweitzer and other liberals did). And I think the last option is just unacceptable.

 

[Resha Caner]

The reason I engage with this question is for the purpose of apologetics. Because I think the alternative is to admit that Jesus was a failed prophet (as Schweitzer and other liberals did). And I think the last option is just unacceptable.

What failures did these people claim?

It's a tricky thing. It's always possible we've misunderstood Scripture in some way. I'm 99% sure some of my past interpretations were a mistake. In those cases one needs to change.

But there are also cases where changing your position would be to admit Jesus failed. The change in position becomes merely a coping mechanism on the road to unbelief.

 

[FireDragon76]

What failures did these people claim?

It's a tricky thing. It's always possible we've misunderstood Scripture in some way. I'm 99% sure some of my past interpretations were a mistake. In those cases one needs to change.

But there are also cases where changing your position would be to admit Jesus failed. The change in position becomes merely a coping mechanism on the road to unbelief.

The lynchpin of liberal theology in Tubingen in the 19th century was the notion that Jesus could not possibly have been who he said he was, that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet and/or revolutionary, because he incorrectly predicted the end of the world. If you can at least point out how that's not the case, then the strongest part of liberal theology collapses.

The point of N.T. Wright and other Preterists is not that Jesus is speaking of the end of the world in terms of the physical universe, in the Olivet Discourse, but he is predicting the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the political-social order.

 

[Resha Caner]

The lynchpin of liberal theology in Tubingen in the 19th century was the notion that Jesus could not possibly have been who he said he was, that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet and/or revolutionary, because he incorrectly predicted the end of the world. If you can at least point out how that's not the case, then the strongest part of liberal theology collapses.

19th century German scholarship was rife with problems. I'm perplexed anyone ever bought into it. Some oppositional scholarship raises good questions, but their stuff ...

I say that because I just don't get it. How is predicting the end of the world a failed prophecy? I know of no proof that shows the world will never end.

 

[FireDragon76]

19th century German scholarship was rife with problems. I'm perplexed anyone ever bought into it. Some oppositional scholarship raises good questions, but their stuff ...

I say that because I just don't get it. How is predicting the end of the world a failed prophecy? I know of no proof that shows the world will never end.

It hinges on the phrasing when Jesus said "Some standing here" and "this generation.." (Matthew 24:34). Liberals took that to mean because Jesus did not return and the sky didn't literally roll up within the apostles/disciples lifetimes, that Jesus was a failed prophet. It's a very common meme in liberal theology, though they are careful not to shout it from the pulpit lest it scare the grannies in the pews.

 

[Resha Caner]

It hinges on the phrasing when Jesus said "Some standing here" and "this generation.." (Matthew 24:34). Liberals took that to mean because Jesus did not return and the sky didn't literally roll up within the apostles/disciples lifetimes, that Jesus was a failed prophet. It's a very common meme in liberal theology, though they are careful not to shout it from the pulpit lest it scare the grannies in the pews.

Were these same people disappointed by the mention of the clay feet in Daniel or the dragon in Revelation that they've never seen? History as history, poetry as poetry, prophecy as prophecy.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't think the Confessions proscribe a particular eschatological -ism beyond the basic confession of the historic Church: of Christ's coming in judgment, the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.

The closest we may come is in the idea that the papal institution is Antichrist, and the Reformer's association of it with the beastly language of the Apocalypse. However I think it is possible to recognize that there are, and have been, "many antichrists" and that all which is in opposition to Christ is properly called antichrist.

I tend to identify as a Preterist, at least broadly speaking, not because I identify with that -ism in any hard fashion; but because I think as a general framework of understanding much of the Olivet Discourse and the Apocalypse of St. John it makes the most sense. But I don't deny that there are themes in the Apocalypse that become applicable throughout the ages, not just restricted to St. John's time, whether that should be called Historicism or Idealism I'm not entirely sure, as I don't know if either, strictly defined, work with that line of thinking.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[trulytheone]

When it comes to the Olivet Discourse, I believe reading Josephus's "Jewish War" will help. He described the supernatural events that had happened before the destruction of the Jewish Temple.