Preterism: Definition and Outline from Liberty University

[Pericles]

I noticed that several futurists here chose to start a few threads on preterism, threads that not only misrepresent this eschatological view, but also attempt to discredit it. Liberty University put together an excellent outline on Preterism. I would advise any open minded believer to read it in detail (with the Bible in hand) before making blank charges of heresy without even knowing what preterism is:

http://www.liberty.edu/courses/theo250/preterism.html

 

[Back To The Future]

This is an excellent article. I am printing it out so I can read it to my husband.

I am a new full preterist. But have been studing about it for 3 years. I just can't belive the info that is available now.

Thanks you so much for posting this.
Blessings
Nancy

 

[Bobcat]

Thanks for sharing that. It lays things out in a very efficient and well documented manner. If the "Great Tribulation" as prophesized by Jesus in Matthew 24-etc. and John in Revelation hasn't happened one would have to at least admit that there are some incredible coincidences between Biblical prophecy and the Jewish War of A.D. 60's and 70.

Here's only one of many, many examples from the Liberty University link:

"2. John, familiar with Jesus' words, has this as his backdrop - the Gentile trampling underfoot of Jerusalem will last 42 months (Rev 11:2)
 
D. THIS TRAMPLING UNDERFOOT OF JERUSALEM OCCURRED DURING THE JEWISH WAR that ended with the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. The war lasted exactly 42 months: from spring, A.D. 67 through August, A.D. 70."

all I can say is WOW!

 

[kern]

Of course, another view of Revelation is that it was written/formed later than 70 AD, which would suggest that this was not a "prophecy" so much as a reference to something that had already happened.

This appears to be the prevailing viewpoint among more "liberal" Christians who are inclined to see Revelation as a symbolic treatise to provide hope to Christians going through times of trial.

Does this fit into any eschatology viewpoint, or is this a denial of eschatology altogether?

-Chris

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by kern
Of course, another view of Revelation is that it was written/formed later than 70 AD, which would suggest that this was not a "prophecy" so much as a reference to something that had already happened.

This appears to be the prevailing viewpoint among more "liberal" Christians who are inclined to see Revelation as a symbolic treatise to provide hope to Christians going through times of trial.

Does this fit into any eschatology viewpoint, or is this a denial of eschatology altogether?

-Chris

Hi Chris,

I actually believe you're on to something. That particular view sounds very familiar with the idealist position of Revelation! However, idealists believe that eventually Christ will come in the future.

And as a preterist, I believe that God speaks to us through the book of Revelation to help us in our times of trial =)

God bless!

-Jason

 

[kern]

Ah, OK, I will have to read up on that. Christ's second coming is talked about in more places than Revelation so even if you ignore that book entirely you can still have Biblical support for it.

-Chris

 

[Pericles]

Originally posted by kern
Of course, another view of Revelation is that it was written/formed later than 70 AD, which would suggest that this was not a "prophecy" so much as a reference to something that had already happened.

This appears to be the prevailing viewpoint among more "liberal" Christians who are inclined to see Revelation as a symbolic treatise to provide hope to Christians going through times of trial.

Does this fit into any eschatology viewpoint, or is this a denial of eschatology altogether?

-Chris

Kern,

While I am aware of this view, it is unlikely for several reasons:

1. If Revelation was written after AD 70 it doesn't discuss the destruction of the temple as a past event.

2. If it was written after AD 70, it would fall outside the scope of Luke 21:22. At the destruction of temple, inspiration ceased, and all things written were fulfilled . That is why today we don't have new writings added to the bible, we don't have prophets, and that is why we don't believe that the book of Mormon is inspired.

3. If it was written in AD 95-96, then all the time statements and references to the temple would be out of sync with the rest of the scripture and history
a. John was writing as if the temple was standing (Rev. 11:1)
b. The city of Jerusalem was also standing (Rev 11:8)
c. Revelation 16:15 is also a direct reference to the temple standing. "Keeping his clothes " is a phraze or expression used concerning the temple guards. When guarding the temple, if a guard would fall asleep at the post, the captain would sneak up on him and set his clothing on fire as an example and punishment for falling asleep, that's why people that were guarding were "keeping their clothes".

And as far as Revelation providing hope, yes I believe that is the case, but before I was able to understand its meaning, it was scaring me to death...and I think most people feel that way because they do not understand the book.

 

[kern]

Here is an example of what I mean from the introduction to Revelation in the Oxford Study Bible (although this by no means the only place this viewpoint exists):
"Though parts of the book may have been reduced to writing before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, it is probable that the author, whose name was John, put the book in its present form toward the end of the reign of the Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96), by whom he had been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos."

The brief introduction does not offer more explanation than that, but more can be found in other Biblical interpretation guides which I should have a look at some time.

-Chris

 

[Pericles]

Originally posted by kern
Here is an example of what I mean from the introduction to Revelation in the Oxford Study Bible (although this by no means the only place this viewpoint exists):
"Though parts of the book may have been reduced to writing before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, it is probable that the author, whose name was John, put the book in its present form toward the end of the reign of the Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96), by whom he had been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos."

The brief introduction does not offer more explanation than that, but more can be found in other Biblical interpretation guides which I should have a look at some time.

-Chris

It sounds like they are again using Irenaeus (aka Erroneous) as their source.

John was banished to Patmos by Nero, also known as Domitius. I can see how someone like Irenaeus, who said that Jesus was never crucified and died of old age, could confuse Domitius with Domitian. On top of that, Domitian did not persecute the church heavily.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by Pericles
I noticed that several futurists here chose to start a few threads on preterism, threads that not only misrepresent this eschatological view, but also attempt to discredit it. Liberty University put together an excellent outline on Preterism. [/URL]

Thank you for this I had not really heard much on the subject except flaiming back and forth from either side, I look forward to reading up on this.