I've been spending some time in FB groups discussing various doctrine and to say I have been shocked would be an understatement. To set the tone, these groups are dealing with Eschatology in what is primarily known as Preterism. This view simply believes that much if not all of biblical prophecy has been fulfilled. For those not familiar with the view, I've posted the link to a good introductory video HERE,. I may even post it in the "what's new" section as well.
Now before all of my Futurist friends get all bent out of shape, there are many views in Eschatology and many well known conservative Christians have accepted the view known as Partial Preterism. The late RC Sproul and currently Jeff Durbin of Apologia Studios are two in this category. This view acknowledges that Matt. 24 and related passages have been mostly if not completely fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and the ending of the Jewish age (Old T sacrifice, temple worship etc) in AD 70.
What has taken me off guard are how many have taken this view to extremes so that "all things" are fulfilled, even to the point most of the New Testament isn't even for us. There are even extremes of this that basically write anyone living today out of the text completely. I'm not kidding, its nuts!
It is true there is much apocalyptic language in the bible and many allegories, shadows, a type of double fulfillment (prophecies concerning Christ). and so forth, but if someone gets lost in this and tries to answer everything and piece it together, we end up with a hodgepodge of different views and basically a mess.
My warning to anyone looking into these things is to be very careful. The Partial Preterist view, which is more easily proven at least as it concerns the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant in Christ (and fully done away post AD 70) is one thing, but once we have to start speculating all the more to try and fit the pieces together that demand a Full Preterist view, we are in danger of taking a good thing way to far.
The Full Preterist say that in order to be consistent a Partial Preterist view cannot hold, but my response to that, is if there is not sufficient and accurate proof taking me beyond what occurred in AD 70, I would rather remain agnostic on it until there is such proof. Call me inconsistent all you want, the Full Preterist view is already in the minority of views and within that view there are so many bickering views, its become a sideshow in these discussion groups.
There is much about the Preterist view that is intriguing and some of the Full Preterist points are valid, but difficult to prove. Prophecy can be ambiguous until fulfilled. I think of Elijah being the person of John the Baptist and not actually Elijah as the prophecy seemed to indicate. Or that at least some of the prophecies of Christ were written about things happening then and could be at least partially fulfilled, but we can only see their magnificence, splendor, ad full fulfillment in Christ.
To the point of the title of this page, some of the people debating these issues are so liberal that they would side with science and liberal beliefs about creation stories, the flood, and just about any orthodox topic is challenged by someone. I often think, why do they even bother if they don't believe the bible is God's word? Understanding metamorphic language and such is all fine and dandy and some things are difficult, but to take it to such degrees we are changing the face of the text to not mean what it plainly means, is highly suspicious and dangerous.
I encourage people to study these things out. The Partial Preterist view has much to offer concerning the end of the Old C and the bringing in of the New C and our current age, but once something gets unclear and we can't be certain, its okay to have an opinion, but to let it go from just an opinion to blind fact is to delve into speculation which could be in error and cause not only yourself, but others to doubt God's word.
Now before all of my Futurist friends get all bent out of shape, there are many views in Eschatology and many well known conservative Christians have accepted the view known as Partial Preterism. The late RC Sproul and currently Jeff Durbin of Apologia Studios are two in this category. This view acknowledges that Matt. 24 and related passages have been mostly if not completely fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and the ending of the Jewish age (Old T sacrifice, temple worship etc) in AD 70.
What has taken me off guard are how many have taken this view to extremes so that "all things" are fulfilled, even to the point most of the New Testament isn't even for us. There are even extremes of this that basically write anyone living today out of the text completely. I'm not kidding, its nuts!
It is true there is much apocalyptic language in the bible and many allegories, shadows, a type of double fulfillment (prophecies concerning Christ). and so forth, but if someone gets lost in this and tries to answer everything and piece it together, we end up with a hodgepodge of different views and basically a mess.
My warning to anyone looking into these things is to be very careful. The Partial Preterist view, which is more easily proven at least as it concerns the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant in Christ (and fully done away post AD 70) is one thing, but once we have to start speculating all the more to try and fit the pieces together that demand a Full Preterist view, we are in danger of taking a good thing way to far.
The Full Preterist say that in order to be consistent a Partial Preterist view cannot hold, but my response to that, is if there is not sufficient and accurate proof taking me beyond what occurred in AD 70, I would rather remain agnostic on it until there is such proof. Call me inconsistent all you want, the Full Preterist view is already in the minority of views and within that view there are so many bickering views, its become a sideshow in these discussion groups.
There is much about the Preterist view that is intriguing and some of the Full Preterist points are valid, but difficult to prove. Prophecy can be ambiguous until fulfilled. I think of Elijah being the person of John the Baptist and not actually Elijah as the prophecy seemed to indicate. Or that at least some of the prophecies of Christ were written about things happening then and could be at least partially fulfilled, but we can only see their magnificence, splendor, ad full fulfillment in Christ.
To the point of the title of this page, some of the people debating these issues are so liberal that they would side with science and liberal beliefs about creation stories, the flood, and just about any orthodox topic is challenged by someone. I often think, why do they even bother if they don't believe the bible is God's word? Understanding metamorphic language and such is all fine and dandy and some things are difficult, but to take it to such degrees we are changing the face of the text to not mean what it plainly means, is highly suspicious and dangerous.
I encourage people to study these things out. The Partial Preterist view has much to offer concerning the end of the Old C and the bringing in of the New C and our current age, but once something gets unclear and we can't be certain, its okay to have an opinion, but to let it go from just an opinion to blind fact is to delve into speculation which could be in error and cause not only yourself, but others to doubt God's word.
RSS Feed