Since my recent comment on preterism occasioned some confusion, I’ll say a bit more.
i) Traditionally, preterism is the view that NT writers thought the end of the world would come in their lifetime. Since it didn’t, they were wrong.
Obviously that entails a liberal view of Scripture. The proverbial prophet who failed.
ii) More recently, N.T. Wright’s mentor, G. B. Caird, construed certain prophecies preterisiticly on the grounds that Scripture sometimes depicts the present in terms of the future. It uses stock, eschatological language to portray historical judgments.
And there’s some truth to this, although the reverse is also true: Scripture sometimes depicts the future in terms of the present.
I’m not entirely clear on what Caird’s own eschatological position amounted to. His commentary on Revelation seems to oscillate between preterism and idealism, universalism and annihilationism.
iii) In any event, his protégé, N. T. Wright, has done much to popularize this type of preteristic hermeneutics.
I’m also not clear on Wright’s eschatology. From what I’ve read, he seems to be rather coy about spelling out his overall position.
iii) The late R. T. France’s interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (and related passages) is also preteristic, based on how he relates the Olivet Discourse to the Ascension of Christ, vis-à-vis Dan 7.
iv) In a different connection, R. C. Sproul has helped to popularized partial preterism.
v) Using the hermeneutical strategies of France, Wright, and Caird, it’s possible to present a more conservative version of preterism. NT writers thought the end of the world would come in their lifetime–and they were right! It’s just that, on this view, the endtime imagery is purely symbolic. It stands for the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
vi) Of course, if you’re a “full” or “consistent” preterist, then you believe that this is as good as it gets. Christ returned, but we still have sin, disease, and death. His return makes no discernible difference. Before and after are indistinguishable. The world is just as evil as it ever was, and ever will be.
vii) Within one strand of theonomy you also have postmillennial preterism. Seems to me that preterism and postmillennialism are diametrically opposed.
Exponents of this view include Greg Bahnsen, as well as popularizers like Gary DeMar and David Chilton. Ken Gentry is their best scholar–although that’s damning by faint praise.
If push came to shove, I prefer historical premillennialism or progressive dispensationalism to the permutations of preterism.
I have a good friend as a Preterist. And he is a marvelous disciple of Christ. Yet, we disagree, and I have my moments, when I am picking on his preterism, and he has some moments as well, picking on my dispentional view.
ReplyDeleteWe sharpen one another for sure.
We do have the Cross in our hearts, and understand how wicked we are, and how amazing our Savior is with His love for us.
>vii) Within one strand of theonomy you also have postmillennial preterism. Seems to me that preterism and postmillennialism are diametrically opposed.
ReplyDeleteSince you have already identified (at least) two strands of preterism, you need to clarify this point. What regarding e.g., Bahnsen's view is in diametric opposition?
"If push came to shove, I prefer historical premillennialism or progressive dispensationalism to the permutations of preterism. "
ReplyDeleteIncluding a Sproul-esque partial preterism? I have to admit, though not a preterist, I find Sproul's treatment of eschatology much more reasonable and conducive to sound theology than most flavors of dispensationalism.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteHere's a representative definition of postmillennialism:
We have defined Postmillennialism as that view of the last things which holds that the Kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the Gospel and the saving work ok the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individuals, that the world eventually is to be Christianized, and that the return of Christ is to occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace commonly called the 'Millennium.' It should be added that on postmillennial principles the second coming of Christ will be followed immediately by the general resurrection, the general judgment, and the introduction of heaven and hell in their fullness.
The Millennium to which the Postmillennialist looks forward is thus a golden age of spiritual prosperity during this present dispensation, that is, during the Church age, and is to be brought about through forces now active in the world. It is an indefinitely long period of time, perhaps much longer than a literal one thousand years. The changed character of individuals will be reflected in an uplifted social, economic, political and cultural life of mankind. The world at large will then enjoy a state of righteousness such as at the present time has been seen only in relatively small and isolated groups, as for example in some family circles, some local church groups and kindred organizations.
http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/last%20things/Postmill_Boettner/3.html
That's fundamentally at odds with a preterist timetable:
In this slim volume, Edward E. Stevens clearly and convincingly demonstrates that our Lord Jesus Christ predicted His Return within the lifetime of His first-century hearers. That fact presents Christians with a dilemma: If Jesus was wrong in His prediction (as theological liberals have been saying for many years), we have a much bigger problem than an academic theological issue regarding the doctrine of Eschatology - it means we can't rely on Jesus for salvation, either! If we can't trust Jesus in Matthew 24, we certainly can't trust Him in John 3:16! As a well-known theologian recently said, "If Jesus is a false prophet, my faith is in vain."
But Mr. Stevens shows that Jesus fulfilled His promise, explicitly and to the letter, in the "great tribulation" of A.D.70, in which God unleashed His covenant wrath against Israel, which had been threatened for centuries throughout the Old Testament Law and Prophets, and specifically applied to first-century Israel in the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament.
I am particularly impressed by two arguments: First, Stevens provides a chart showing the harmony of Christ's two separate discourses recorded in Matthew 24 and Luke 17 - demonstrating that any proposed division of Matthew 24 into two different "comings" is illegitimate, nugatory, and gossamer. Scripture foretells a Second Coming (Heb.9:28) - not a third!
Second, Stevens presses Christ's declaration in Luke 21:22 to its limit: "Jesus said that all Old Testament prophecy would be fulfilled by the time Jerusalem was destroyed." The more I pondered the awesome implications of Jesus' words, the more I realized their truly revolutionary significance for eschatology. Without exception, every event foretold by the Biblical prophets was fulfilled within that generation, as Jesus had said (Matt. 16:27-28; 24:34).
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Modern/1996_chilton_foreword.html
CHRIS HANSEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Including a Sproul-esque partial preterism?"
I don't look to Sproul for pointers on how to interpret Scripture. He doesn't have any particular expertise in exegetical theology. He's a popularizer and a generalist.
Sproul's "Last Days According to Jesus" is basically DeMar and Gentry honed down to the most essential points.
ReplyDeleteI think it is possible to be a partial preterist and an Amillennialist or a Historic Pre-Mill, even though Gentry and DeMar and Sproul are Post-Mill.
Sproul interpreted Matthew 13:38-42, 49-50 as 70 AD - I thought he was definitely wrong on that. If DeMar and Gentry think that, then they are wrong.
That seems clear that is about the end of time when Christ returns and judgment begins.
DeMar had an appendix on 2 Peter 3 - about the "earth burning up and melting" and even interpreted that as 70 AD, but he took that appendix out in subsequent editions. (Last Days Madness)
Partial Preterists see Matthew 24:36 "but of that Day" as the key marker between 70 AD and 24:36 is the second coming.
I think the Disciples question in Matthew 24:3 is key - they are the ones who mix 70 AD (destruction of the temple) together with "the end of the age" and "the sign of Your coming" - Jesus answers and mixes the 2 events together, it seems to me.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThe confusion in your original statement revolves around a) failing to distinguish “full” or “consistent” preterism from “partial” or “orthodox” preterism, and b) suggesting that Bahnsen, et al simultaneously subscribe to two things which are “diametrically opposed.” Postmillennialism and partial preterism are not in opposition to one another. In fact they are quite congruous.
Since Stevens is not a partial preterist linking him in some way with Bahnsen, et al, is unjustified.
Even partial preterism is in tension with the postmillennialism.
ReplyDelete"I don't look to Sproul for pointers on how to interpret Scripture. He doesn't have any particular expertise in exegetical theology. He's a popularizer and a generalist."
ReplyDeleteNot arguing otherwise, although as others have said his work is based on other works that are more scholarly. I'm just surprised you would prefer dispensationalism to the type of position Sproul advocates, not to his work in particular. Not that it decides the matter biblically, but I'm not aware of any Reformed denomination in assembly or study concluding against partial preterism, while many have against dispensationalism.
Even partial preterism is in tension with the postmillennialism.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
Thanks for backing off the original statement which was absurd in its implication. Now we await the justification for your claim of "tension."