• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How could anyone believe in Preterism?

evangelist6589

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hyper Preterism which is heresy or partial Preterism are questionable views. I know some good scholars like RC Sproul and Gentry hold to the partial position but they are only a few.

Tim Lahaye, Thomas Ice, John MacArthur and perhaps David Jeremiah worked together and wrote a book called the end times controversy which is a refutation against Preterism. Does anyone have it? I would like this book or the book on the 4 views of Revelation but there just seems so much evidence for the the premillennialism and pretrib interpretation. If anyone disagree and holds to Preterism please speak out, thanks..
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Preterism is a hyper-intellectual endeavor looking for a reason to have to dig for something that otherwise is given in plain terms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

evangelist6589

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Preterism is a hyper-intellectual endeavor looking for a to have to dig for something that otherwise is given in plain terms.


It makes no sense to me. The funny thing is that writings from AD 70 and a little after the temple was destroyed even believed that the coming return would happen. Even they did not hold to Preterism.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hyper Preterism which is heresy or partial Preterism are questionable views. I know some good scholars like RC Sproul and Gentry hold to the partial position but they are only a few.

Tim Lahaye, Thomas Ice, John MacArthur and perhaps David Jeremiah worked together and wrote a book called the end times controversy which is a refutation against Preterism. Does anyone have it? I would like this book or the book on the 4 views of Revelation but there just seems so much evidence for the the premillennialism and pretrib interpretation. If anyone disagree and holds to Preterism please speak out, thanks..

Most of the reformed would hold to A Mil position, as unlike Full blown Preterien, they would still see a literal Second Coming and a glorification of the saints!
 

Grasshopper

Active Member
Site Supporter
Hyper Preterism which is heresy or partial Preterism are questionable views. I know some good scholars like RC Sproul and Gentry hold to the partial position but they are only a few.

Tim Lahaye, Thomas Ice, John MacArthur and perhaps David Jeremiah worked together and wrote a book called the end times controversy which is a refutation against Preterism. Does anyone have it? I would like this book or the book on the 4 views of Revelation but there just seems so much evidence for the the premillennialism and pretrib interpretation. If anyone disagree and holds to Preterism please speak out, thanks..

What do you want me to speak out on? I came to the conclusion, after years of studying the subject, that some form of preterism is the only possibility. How anyone can believe the nonsense of LaHaye, Lindsey and MacArthur is beyond me,but I did. When I decided to study other views it became obvious very soon that the view I grew up with was full of errors.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What do you want me to speak out on? I came to the conclusion, after years of studying the subject, that some form of preterism is the only possibility. How anyone can believe the nonsense of LaHaye, Lindsey and MacArthur is beyond me,but I did. When I decided to study other views it became obvious very soon that the view I grew up with was full of errors.

Shush....don't say that too loud around here:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
We give folks the right to be wrong (soul liberty does not guarantee you will end up holding the true interpretation). Grasshopper has the right to his position, as ridiculous and untenable as it is.

But I won't say anything bad about such a ludicrous, preposterous and absurd belief as he holds.

:saint: :saint: :saint:
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hyper Preterism which is heresy or partial Preterism are questionable views.

I didn't always believe in Preterism. I came to it after first being dispensational for 2 or 3 decades (depending on how one defines dispensionalism). When I started the first Prewrath group in Yahoogroups we were often pestered by Preterists of several stripes. I tried to be nice to them, though I doubted the salvation of many of them. Eventually I booted some of them off my group!

But some of the points they made wouldn't go away. Eventually I determined that I was going to give this serious attention. I made a point, for a period of time, not to read either Preterist books or anti-preterist books - other than to prayerfully study out the passages that both sides kept bringing up.

That is how I "could believe in Preterism". The pieces fell into place for me.
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It makes no sense to me. The funny thing is that writings from AD 70 and a little after the temple was destroyed even believed that the coming return would happen. Even they did not hold to Preterism.

What makes you think that those writings are, in fact, "from AD 70 and a little after the temple was destroyed"?
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We give folks the right to be wrong (soul liberty does not guarantee you will end up holding the true interpretation). Grasshopper has the right to his position, as ridiculous and untenable as it is.

But I won't say anything bad about such a ludicrous, preposterous and absurd belief as he holds.

:saint: :saint: :saint:

FWIW, Dr. Bob, I think you do a very good job here.
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This post is part I of II

The following is a quote from a 2009 essay on Hyper-Preterism. Hyper-Preterism and Full Preterism are the same thing. The author of this essay makes some excellent points. The most salient among them is the importance of not letting Full Preterists off the hook. The essay gives excellent advice on how to do that:

To combat hyperpreterism you MUST keep them on the main premise -- that they are trying to tell you that God could not or would not maintain within His Church a basic & correct understanding of the endtimes. Don't let hyperpreterists leave this premise no matter how much they claim to want to talk about "scripture" or have an "exegetical" conversation. Premises matter & the hyperpreterist premise is faulty to the core.

So, here is the essay in toto:

First, for those who do not know what hyperpreterism is let me summarize the 3 main positions held by hyperpreterists. (pret sounds like bet).

3 MAIN BELIEFS OF HYPERPRETERISM

1. Jesus came back once & for all in the year AD70
2. The resurrection of the believers happened in the year AD70.
3. The judgment of the wicked & righteous happened in the year AD70.

These 3 points are driven by an over arching premise which is that Christian interpretation & indeed basic Christian understanding has been terribly in error for over 2000 years. Some hyperpreterists even claim there has been a 2000 year conspiracy to cover up the 3 beliefs above.

Now, why is it called HYPER-preterism? The word "hyper" in the theological sense means to go beyond the original intent or scope -- so HYPER-preterism is a belief that goes beyond an original version that was simply called preterism. Traditional/Historic preteristic beliefs do see some significance in the AD70 events (See Matthew 24:1-3, Mark 13:1-3, Luke 21:5-7,20) BUT classic preterism did NOT advocate the 3 beliefs mentioned above. Thus, hyperpreterism is considered HYPER just as much as HYPER-Calvinism goes beyond the original intent & scope of traditional/historic Calvinism.

Hyperpreterism is also Heterodox...a heresy. It is NOT a heresy just because we don't like it, nor is it a heresy because it is "new", nor is it a heresy because the majority oppose it. Hyperpreterism is a heresy because it is unlike anything ever taught in the history of Christianity...from the very founding to now. Hyperpreterism is as much outside of historic Christianity as is Mormonism & JWs. Hyperpreterists often call their system: Full Preterism, Covenant Eschatology, Consistent Preterism, Fulfilled Eschatology, or a new name bandied about in attempt to make it sound more legitimate, Biblical Preterism.

WHERE DID HYPERPRETERISM COME FROM?

The present day versions of hyperpreterism all originated in the 1970s with a man named Max King. King was a "church of Christ" minister who wrote several hyperpreterist books in the 1970-1980s. Hyperpreterism before that was mainly manifested among Universalists (people who believed no one would ultimately be condemned -- "everyone is saved"). Perhaps the most infamous group of pre-1970 hyperpreterists was a group in upstate New York in the late 1800s. This group was called the "Oneida Community" (search wikipedia.org). This group formed a commune & practiced their hyperpreterism to the extent of no longer having individual marriages but instead everyone having sexual relations with everyone else -- they thought this would be a "logical" conclusion if the resurrection is already passed & people are no longer given in marriage. (Mt 22:30)

Hyperpreterism died out & as I said was revived again in the 1970s. Hyperpreterism is experiencing a resurgence & is beginning to show itself among the churches. Hyperpreterists typically don't (or can't) maintain their own congregations so instead, "lone ranger" hyperpreterists either try to influence existing congregations or they drop out of attending church & instead try to influence Christians.

Hyperpreterism is mainly an online phenomenon. Some of the hyperpreterists came through so-called "Reformed" teachers such as Gary DeMar who although he claims he is not a hyperpreterist himself, he refuses to call it a heresy & has spoken at hyperpreterist conferences & maintains a friendly presence on hyperpreterist websites.

HOW TO COMBAT HYPERPRETERISM

Hyperpreterism by design is an arrogant & egotistical system -- after all it claims 2000 years worth of Christian interpretation has been MAJORLY wrong, so trying to interact with a hyperpreterist one on one will be a frustrating & futlile endeavor. Hyperpreterism redefines theological terms & definitions so although a Christian may think they are having a fruitful, scriptural discussion with a hyperpreterist, you must recognize that hyperpreterism like Mormonism & JWs may use Christian sounding terms & even appeal to the Bible -- but just like those other cults -- hyperpreterism is anything but Christian.

To combat hyperpreterism you MUST keep them on the main premise -- that they are trying to tell you that God could not or would not maintain within His Church a basic & correct understanding of the endtimes. Don't let hyperpreterists leave this premise no matter how much they claim to want to talk about "scripture" or have an "exegetical" conversation. Premises matter & the hyperpreterist premise is faulty to the core.

HYPERPRETERIST TACTICS

Hyperpreterists will try several tactics to break down the defenses (armor) of a Christian. A couple things they will do are:

1. Claim they are only using "Sola Scriptura/Bible alone" methods
2. Claim Hyperpreterism always existed in "seed" form.
3. Claim there has never been a Church council on eschatology.
4. Claim you are unloving or mean to not accept them.
5. Attempt to get legitimate teachers/preachers to validate them.

The first point is perhaps the one that hooked me on hyperpreterism for a time (yes I am a former hyperpreterist). Hyperpreterism often claims it is merely reading/interpreting the Bible as it is written. Hyperpreterists will also pit their interpretation against 2000 years of Christian interpretation by claiming they don't follow the "Creeds" (this comes from its 'church of Christ' foundation). The word Creed, in Latin simply means "belief". So, unless hyperpreterists are trying to claim they don't believe anything, they too have a "creed" -- its just that the hyperpreterist "creed" goes against everything that was ever considered Christian. Another tactic hyperpreterists try to employ under point #1 is to compare themselves with the Reformation & the Reformers like Martin Luther. The problem is, hyperpreterism would have been rejected by the Reformers as well. Hyperpreterists are more like the "radical reformation" (look up on wikipedia.org) which wanted to chuck everything & start over. The Reformers & especially Martin Luther, rejected the radicals as heretics.

Lastly on this point, hyperpreterists will often try to claim that Luther was teaching something never before taught in the Church -- this is categorically untrue. Luther was merely re-espousing long advocated beliefs that are found more than just in "seed" form both in the Bible & in historic Christian interpretation. (see Augustinianism for example).

Point #2 in hyperpreterists tactics is one I've seen used by so-called "conservative hyperpreterists". They want to pretend there are traces of hyperpreterism all throughout Christian history. What they do is find a quote by some theologian that sounds like preterism or hyperpreterism & then tell you it is a "seed" of their belief even if the overall premise & position of the theologian is clearly in opposition to hyperpreterism. The hyperpreterists attempt to find "seeds" of hyperpreterism under every little theological rock is merely wishful thinking. No serious theologian in history has ever advocated what hyperpreterists believe...now that in itself doesn't make hyperpreterism wrong, but it does make their claim to find "seeds" a dishonesty.

Point #3 is an oft repeated tactic of hyperpreterist followers who have picked up this line from hyperpreterist teachers -- I say this because most hyperpreterist followers have scant knowledge of Christian history -- to the point of you will often see them spelling Arminianism as Armenians .

First, the use of this tactic seems to miss the point as to why councils were called. Church councils were not called to impose a new belief on the Church but rather councils were primarily called only when a new heresy rose up. So, the reason there has never been a need for a specific council addressing eschatology is because there has never been a heresy divergent enough from the traditional teaching on eschatology. The point is, even with variances among the existing eschatological models -- ALL of the eschatological models AGREE on EXACTLY the 3 beliefs that hyperpreterism denies. This is significant.

Point #4 is used when all else fails. Hyperpreterists will begin to claim anyone who opposes them must "hate" them & want them to "go to hell" -- even if their opponents never use these words. Hyperpreterists will play the victim & persecuted in attempt to gain sympathy. Don't buy it.

Point #5 is used more by the hyperpreterist "leaders". They will try to get well known, respected teachers/preachers to say hyperpreterism is not a heresy & then they will cite these people in their defense. I've seen hyperpreterists do with with people such as Gary DeMar & James Jordan. Hyperpreterists will also attempt to join legitimate groups such as ETS or a local seminary & use this as "proof" they are valid.
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Given the board rules I decided to omit part II of II because it makes strong comments on the spiritual state of those who hold to full Preterism.
 

Grasshopper

Active Member
Site Supporter
Given the board rules I decided to omit part II of II because it makes strong comments on the spiritual state of those who hold to full Preterism.

If you knew anything about Roderick Edwards, you probably wouldn't use his work as a source. Notice the lack of Biblical argumentation.
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
First, for those who do not know what hyperpreterism is let me summarize the 3 main positions held by hyperpreterists. (pret sounds like bet).

3 MAIN BELIEFS OF HYPERPRETERISM

1. Jesus came back once & for all in the year AD70
2. The resurrection of the believers happened in the year AD70.
3. The judgment of the wicked & righteous happened in the year AD70.

No, this is not what I believe. Specifically speaking of #3.

"It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment". (quoted from memory)

It is irritating to have to keep reading so-called experts tell each other what we believe. Why don't you ask me, a brother in Christ, or other Preterists instead of quoting some sketchy professor XYZ on something he is evidently clueless on?

This is why many people are abysmally ignorant of our position, seeing the degree of misinformation constantly given out. We are constantly having to defend the basics ABCs of our position from (perhaps) well-meaning misconceptions, never getting to the DEFs or beyond.

Actually most of are rebuttals are repetitions of A.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, this is not what I believe. Specifically speaking of #3.

"It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment". (quoted from memory)

It is irritating to have to keep reading so-called experts tell each other what we believe. Why don't you ask me, a brother in Christ, or other Preterists instead of quoting some sketchy professor XYZ on something he is evidently clueless on?

This is why many people are abysmally ignorant of our position, seeing the degree of misinformation constantly given out. We are constantly having to defend the basics ABCs of our position from (perhaps) well-meaning misconceptions, never getting to the DEFs or beyond.

Actually most of are rebuttals are repetitions of A.

Would you consider yourself a full or partial Preterist?
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If you knew anything about Roderick Edwards, you probably wouldn't use his work as a source. Notice the lack of Biblical argumentation.

Like anything else, his work is open for debate. I don't believe his essay was meant to be an exegetical refutation. But I can't deny that he brought up some very good issues for discussion.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Years ago (not sure how many) one of the preterist brothers said regarding the scripture "all has been fulfilled".

In addition everything in scripture which speaks of an apocalyptic event is an allegory and/or spiritualized by the preterist.

With that formula one can make the scripture say whatever one desires.

To me this is the scripture which is of the greatest difficulty for the preterist:

Acts 1
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Facts
It was a visible ascension.
"This same Jesus" - not Titus.
"Shall so come in like manner" - visibly back down through the atmosphere - "every eye shall see Him".

Logic:
There is still sin and death on planet earth.
Will it continue on forever? The preterist cannot answer this because they say "all has been fulfilled" and have no eschatalogical scripture to reference concerning this question.

Another question: Do preterists have communion? If so why? because the command is to do it "till He come"

These are just a few objections to preterism.

All systems of eschatology have their problems, IMO, full preterism has the most.

Brother Tom and I and several others had a lengthy debate concerning preterism vs futurism a few years ago, scan the BB archives and you will see all the objections and rebuttals.

The "bottom line" : Indeed there is much allegory, types and figures of speech in the scripture. Rightly interpreting the whole counsel of God is the key.

Personally, I leave room for those who hold to preterism, I don't believe it is a heresy, they do believe in the second coming, just different than traditional Christianity

HankD
 
Top