Preterism misrepresents Scripture

[sovereigngrace]

There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it. The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. That is all they want to talk about. How sad! If you notice when you engage with them, most never want to talk about Jesus' glorious future return in majesty and glory to introduce everlasting perfection, righteousness and justice on the new earth. That is because many do not even believe in a future second coming. That is plainly heretical! They should not be allowed to espouse such error in Christian circles.

They wrongly take words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” that relate to the future coming of Christ as relating to AD 70. But Jesus did not physically come then. Every eye did not see Him. The general resurrection/judgment did not occur. The corrupted heavens, earth and elements were obviously not burnt up then. The NHNE were not introduced then. What is more: man is still sinning, dying, decaying, crying, hating, and destroying, in pain, in sorrow, experiencing the awful consequences of the curse. That has not been lifted. The reality is: the whole of creation human, animal and the physical realm are groaning and travailing because of the bondage of corruption. This whole theory is nonsensical, erroneous and unscriptural. The reality around us and the biblical facts totally expose Preterist error.

Most Bible-believing Christians rightly take such predictions from the Holy Spirit pertaining to Christ’s return like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” as expressing time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. Amils equally take teaching and metaphoric phrases like the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 that expressly runs from from the first resurrection till a period of severe persecution before the literal physical return of Jesus, and the general resurrection/judgment as an actual literal lengthy time period, which we are now in. This corresponds with Matthew 25:14, 19-30 which describes the same intra-advent period and associated events. This is notably described by Jesus as “a long time.”

Both the righteous and the wicked receive their judgment at the all-consummating Second Advent of the Lord – “at my coming.” Not simply the wicked, but the righteous servants are brought before the bar of God to account for their talents.

While Preterists would have us believe that Jesus is contradicting Himself, we know that Matthew 25:14, 19-30 and Revelation 20 are looking at time form man’s perspective. After all, Moses instructs in Psalms 90:3-5: “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

2 Peter 3:8-9 reinforces this thought: “beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack (or slow) concerning his promise, as some men count slackness (slowness).”

Our view of time is completely different from God's. There is a big difference between God’s heavenly eternal perspective and our earthly temporal perspective, something you do not seem to grasp. The phrases “a long time” and “a short time” are all subject to the one talking, their perspective and the subject matter under discussion. From man's perspective 2000 years is a long time. From God's perspective it is not. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state. God is “from everlasting” (Habakkuk 1:12, Psalms 93:2).

The objective and informed Bible student will see the contrast between the thousand years in Revelation 20 which represents a long time and Satan's little season which represents a short period of time near the end.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it. The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. That is all they want to talk about. How sad! If you notice when you engage with them, most never want to talk about Jesus glorious future return in majesty and glory to introduce everlasting perfection, righteousness and justice on the new earth. That is because many do not even believe in a future second coming. That is plainly heretical! They should not be allowed to espouse such error in Christian circles.

They wrongly take words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” that relate to the future coming of Christ as relating to AD 70. But Jesus did not physically come then. Every eye did not see Him. The general resurrection/judgment did not occur. The corrupted heavens, earth and elements were obviously not burnt up then. The NHNE were not introduced then. This theory is nonsensical, erroneous and unscriptural. This totally demolishes their error.

Most Bible-believing Christians rightly take such predictions from the Holy Spirit pertaining to Christ’s return like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” as expressing time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. Amils equally take teaching and metaphoric phrases like the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 that expressly runs from from the first resurrection till a period of severe persecution before the literal physical return of Jesus, and the general resurrection/judgment as an actual literal lengthy time period, which we are now in. This corresponds with Matthew 25:14, 19-30 which describes the same intra-advent period and associated events. This is notable described by Jesus as “a long time.”

Here again, both the righteous and the wicked receive their judgment at the all-consummating Second Advent of the Lord – “at my coming.” Not simply the wicked, but the righteous servants are brought before the bar of God to account for their talents.

While Preterists would have us believe that Jesus is contradicting Himself, we know that Matthew 25:14, 19-30 and Revelation 20 are looking at time form man’s perspective. After all, Moses instructs in Psalms 90:3-5: “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

2 Peter 3:8-9 reinforces this thought: “beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack (or slow) concerning his promise, as some men count slackness (slowness).”

Our view of time is completely different from God's. There is a big difference between God’s heavenly eternal perspective and our earthly temporal perspective, something you do not seem to grasp. The phrases “a long time” and “a short time” are all subject to the one talking, their perspective and the subject matter under discussion. From man's perspective 2000 years is a long time. From God's perspective it is not. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state. God is “from everlasting” (Habakkuk 1:12, Psalms 93:2).

The objective and informed Bible student will see the contrast between the thousand years in Revelation 20 which represents a long time and Satan's little season which represents a short period of time near the end.

Though it is still a minority view, it is growing only because Dispensational Futurism has hijacked eschatology. Consider it a temporary push back for now.
"Seek and ye shall find".
Blessings.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Though it is still a minority view, it is growing only because Dispensational Futurism has hijacked eschatology. Consider it a temporary push back for now.
"Seek and ye shall find".
Blessings.

What is "temporary"?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

What is "temporary"?

Temporary until the truth is revealed.

 

[trophy33]

1. People are frustrated because of never ending and laughably complex futurism speculations

2. The natural reading of Scriptures, without bending it to fit some preconceived theology, points to Jesus and apostles to prophecy that all will be fulfilled in the 1st century. If it was fulfilled visibly/physically or spiritually or some mix of both, is open to interpretation.

 

[sovereigngrace]

1. People are frustrated because of never ending and laughably complex futurism speculations

2. The natural reading of Scriptures, without bending it to fit some preconceived theology, points to Jesus and apostles to prophecy that all will be fulfilled in the 1st century. If it was fulfilled visibly/physically or spiritually or some mix of both, is open to interpretation.

Not so. Scripture teaches a mixture of Historism, Partial Preterism and Futurism.

But there are 2 Advents in Scripture. Full Preterists only see one. That is why they cannot address the biblical rebuttals against it. Please address the biblical arguments that forbid Preterism.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Temporary until the truth is revealed.

Scripture teaches a mixture of Historism, Partial Preterism and Futurism.

 

[trophy33]

Please address the biblical arguments that forbid Preterism.

These are just intepretation debates and as such, quite useless. I will not convince you, you will not convince me. Its rather something one will find during personal readings of Scriptures than while addressing online arguments.

 

[Jipsah]

There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it.

I.E., you don't actually know wjhat preterism is. Good start, that.

The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world.

Purest arglebargle. Preterism says "what happened, happened", end of. Futurists have to deny that a good many things that our Lord prophesied actually happened, or claim that they somehow "didn't count". In other words, their doctrine takes precedence over historical fact. At best that's simply dishonest.

If you notice when you engage with them, most never want to talk about Jesus' glorious future return in majesty and glory

Interesting contention. All orthodox preterists confess that our Lord "ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, from whence He shall come again to judge the quick and the dead." Are you sure you've ever even talked to any actual preterists, and aren't simply attacking what you think they believe?

That is because many do not even believe in a future second coming.

Those are explicitly forbidden to post in this forum. Got any more strawmen to beat?

They wrongly take words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” that relate to the future coming of Christ as relating to AD 70.

When of course those words can't possibly be taken to mean what they mean... at least if you're a futurist with a ridiculous doctrine to try and defend.

But Jesus did not physically come then.

See the Apostle's Creed again. "...shall come again to judge the quick and the dead."

Every eye did not see Him. The general resurrection/judgment did not occur. The corrupted heavens, earth and elements were obviously not burnt up then.

Fair play. But unfortunately your lot has to deny that Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, that the Temple was desecrated, that no stone of it was left standing upon another, that sacrifice and oblation have ceased, etc. "Oh, but those things didn't count", else our doctrine would be rubbish." Right?

Most Bible-believing Christians rightly take such predictions from the Holy Spirit pertaining to Christ’s return like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” as expressing time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position.

Which allows you to maintain the illusion that it has any relationship with reality, but also makes the words of the Scripture meaningless from a human standpoint. Let's face it, for human beings, 2000+ years isn't "soon". Buit your doctrine has to turn plain-English into gibberish to keep from sinking without a trace.

Amils equally take teaching and metaphoric phrases like the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 that expressly runs from from the first resurrection till a period of severe persecution before the literal physical return of Jesus, and the general resurrection/judgment as an actual literal lengthy time period, which we are now in.

Analyze that sentence and see if you can find an actual meaning there, That's what you end up with when you start try to defend ridiculous concept - gobbledygook.

While Preterists would have us believe that Jesus is contradicting Himself

A charge as ridiculous as it is false.

Our view of time is completely different from God's

So "soon" may have meant anything at all, or nothing? But then, why say it, and repeat it as though for emphasis? But again, if you have a baseless doctrine to defend, you sometimes have to resort to linguistic shenanigans of that kind, don't you?

You've demonstrated brilliantly that dispensational futurism is rubbish, and indefensible without resorting to arrant nonsense.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I.E., you don't actually know wjhat preterism is. Good start, that.


Purest arglebargle. Preterism says "what happened, happened", end of. Futurists have to deny that a good many things that our Lord prophesied actually happened, or claim that they somehow "didn't count". In other words, their doctrine takes precedence over historical fact. At best that's simply dishonest.


Interesting contention. All orthodox preterists confess that our Lord "ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, from whence He shall come again to judge the quick and the dead." Are you sure you've ever even talked to any actual preterists, and aren't simply attacking what you think they believe?

Those are explicitly forbidden to post in this forum. Got any more strawmen to beat?

When of course those words can't possibly be taken to mean what they mean... at least if you're a futurist with a ridiculous doctrine to try and defend.

See the Apostle's Creed again. "...shall come again to judge the quick and the dead."

Fair play. But unfortunately your lot has to deny that Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, that the Temple was desecrated, that no stone of it was left standing upon another, that sacrifice and oblation have ceased, etc. "Oh, but those things didn't count", else our doctrine would be rubbish." Right?


Which allows you to maintain the illusion that it has any relationship with reality, but also makes the words of the Scripture meaningless from a human standpoint. Let's face it, for human beings, 2000+ years isn't "soon". Buit your doctrine has to turn plain-English into gibberish to keep from sinking without a trace.


Analyze that sentence and see if you can find an actual meaning there, That's what you end up with when you start try to defend ridiculous concept - gobbledygook.


A charge as ridiculous as it is false.


So "soon" may have meant anything at all, or nothing? But then, why say it, and repeat it as though for emphasis? But again, if you have a baseless doctrine to defend, you sometimes have to resort to linguistic shenanigans of that kind, don't you?

You've demonstrated brilliantly that dispensational futurism is rubbish, and indefensible without resorting to arrant nonsense.

LOL. Believing in a literal physical future coming of Christ is now deemed "dispensational futurism"? That is ridiculous! This shows your ignorance of the broad biblical beliefs of most of Christendom over the years and particularly evangelical Protestantism. It shows a naivety to the facts. Petty name-calling doesn't cut it.

I have engaged with Preterists for years, mainly online. I have found it hard to find them in the real world amongst solid Bible-believing churches. I am fully aware (and so is everyone else who engages with them) of what Preterism believes and how they are fixated with Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. The reader will see that your focus is on "what happened" on that date instead of what is coming when Jesus comes in majesty and glory to usher in the new earth. That is not something that ignites an interest with Preterists.

Scripture teaches a mixture of Historicism, Partial Preterism and Futurism. You and your fellow Preterists seem so obsessed with Titus and AD70 you are incapable or unwilling to talk about the future hope.

 

[trophy33]

Scripture teaches a mixture of Historicism, Partial Preterism and Futurism. You and your fellow Preterist seem so obsessed with Titus and AD70 you are unwilling to talk about the future hope.

Full preterists are not allowed to speak about the second coming on these forums. So its not unwillingness.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Full preterists are not allowed to speak about the second coming on these forums. So its not unwillingness.

This is where you err. The future hope is not past but future.

 

[trophy33]

This is where you err. The future hope is not past but future. This is where you err.

It seems you do not understand what I am saying. You complain that preterists mention Titus, but not the second coming. I am telling you the reason - they are not allowed to talk their (probably various) views of the second coming, here.

 

[sovereigngrace]

It seems you do not understand what I am saying. You complain that preterists mention Titus, but not the second coming. I am telling you the reason - they are not allowed to talk their (probably various) views of the second coming, here.

... and rightly so. It is heresy!

 

[trophy33]

... and rightly so. It is heresy!

God will judge what is a heresy or not.

History should warn us against the usage of this word.

 

[sovereigngrace]

God will judge what is a heresy or not.

History should warn us against the usage of this word.

Those who have eyes to see will see. Those who do not, will not. It is all by revelation. This thread is obviously exposing where people are.

 

[trophy33]

Those who have eyes to see will see. Those who do not, will not. It is all by revelation. This thread is obviously exposing where people are.

Beware of the "exposing others" complex.

We are not living in times when "confirm or deny" was a thing or even a question of life and death.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it. The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70, instead of Christ's person and future glorious return at the end of the world. That is all they want to talk about. How sad! If you notice when you engage with them, most never want to talk about Jesus' glorious future return in majesty and glory to introduce everlasting perfection, righteousness and justice on the new earth. That is because many do not even believe in a future second coming. That is plainly heretical! They should not be allowed to espouse such error in Christian circles.

I fully agree. I have tried to get them to talk about His glorious future appearing and they never seem interested. They will say they believe in that, but then don't seem to want to say anything more about it. That is troubling and makes me wonder if they really do believe in that or not. It seems to me that many partial preterists are not far away from becoming full preterists and that is concerning.

They wrongly take words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” that relate to the future coming of Christ as relating to AD 70. But Jesus did not physically come then. Every eye did not see Him. The general resurrection/judgment did not occur. The corrupted heavens, earth and elements were obviously not burnt up then. The NHNE were not introduced then. This theory is nonsensical, erroneous and unscriptural. This totally exposes their error.

I couldn't agree more. It's odd that they take those words literally every time, but symbolize the burning up of the heavens and the earth and symbolize the new heavens and new earth. They are similar to futurists in that they often interpret symbolic text literally and literal text symbolically.

Most Bible-believing Christians rightly take such predictions from the Holy Spirit pertaining to Christ’s return like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near” as expressing time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. Amils equally take teaching and metaphoric phrases like the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 that expressly runs from from the first resurrection till a period of severe persecution before the literal physical return of Jesus, and the general resurrection/judgment as an actual literal lengthy time period, which we are now in. This corresponds with Matthew 25:14, 19-30 which describes the same intra-advent period and associated events. This is notable described by Jesus as “a long time.”

Agree. Also, in terms of verses that speak of Him coming quickly, such as in Revelation 22:7,12 and 20, I believe it's referring to how quickly He will come once it is time for Him to come. So, I believe those should be understood in the same context as what Jesus Himself said here:

Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Once it is time for Him to come, He will come very quickly and, if 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 is any indication, the things that are said to happen on that day will occur very quickly as well. His coming will happen so quickly that unbelievers will have no time to react because"sudden destruction" will come upon them unexpectedly like a thief in the night and "they will not escape" (1 Thess 5:2-3).

Here again, both the righteous and the wicked receive their judgment at the all-consummating Second Advent of the Lord – “at my coming.” Not simply the wicked, but the righteous servants are brought before the bar of God to account for their talents.

While Preterists would have us believe that Jesus is contradicting Himself, we know that Matthew 25:14, 19-30 and Revelation 20 are looking at time form man’s perspective. After all, Moses instructs in Psalms 90:3-5: “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

2 Peter 3:8-9 reinforces this thought: “beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack (or slow) concerning his promise, as some men count slackness (slowness).”

Our view of time is completely different from God's. There is a big difference between God’s heavenly eternal perspective and our earthly temporal perspective, something you do not seem to grasp. The phrases “a long time” and “a short time” are all subject to the one talking, their perspective and the subject matter under discussion. From man's perspective 2000 years is a long time. From God's perspective it is not. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state. God is “from everlasting” (Habakkuk 1:12, Psalms 93:2).

The objective and informed Bible student will see the contrast between the thousand years in Revelation 20 which represents a long time and Satan's little season which represents a short period of time near the end.

Right. Since you mentioned a passage from Peter here, let's take 1 Peter 4:7 as an example.

1 Peter 4:7 The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray.

Was Peter really intending to say here that the end of all things was literally near and would soon occur from man's perspective of time? I don't believe so. If we use scripture to interpret scripture then we can see in 2 Peter 3:8-12 that Peter talked about the end of all things being near from the Lord's perspective. So, why wouldn't we understand him to be speaking from that perspective in 1 Peter 4:7 as well? And he showed how that means no one can say the Lord is being slow to keep His promise since He is not being slow to keep His promise from His eternal perspective where there's no difference between a day and a thousand years (or any other amount of time).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

1. People are frustrated because of never ending and laughably complex futurism speculations

That's understandable, but it seems that preterists have overreacted to that and gone too far the other way.

2. The natural reading of Scriptures, without bending it to fit some preconceived theology, points to Jesus and apostles to prophecy that all will be fulfilled in the 1st century. If it was fulfilled visibly/physically or spiritually or some mix of both, is open to interpretation.

Is the following open to interpretation in terms of whether or not Jesus would come back one day visibly and/or bodily?

Acts 1:9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

When Jesus ascended to heaven people literally saw Him before their very eyes go up towards heaven and He literally ascended bodily, right? This passage indicates that He will come back from heaven in the same way/manner in which He ascended to heaven. So, that means He will come back bodily and people will see Him. Do you agree? If not, then this is the kind of thing that makes some of us just as frustrated with preterism as you are with futurism.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Full preterists are not allowed to speak about the second coming on these forums. So its not unwillingness.

Partial preterists often seem to have no interest in talking about His future second coming. They spend much more time talking about things related to what happened in 70 AD than they do about His future glorious appearing.