What is the Preterist View?I. What is the Preterist View of Scripture?The Preterist view of scripture, eschatology and theology begins withunderstanding the basic biblical view of hermeneutics. The science of hermeneuticsis the science of interpreting scripture. It should be the intent of everyChristian student of the Bible to let scripture interpret scripture. This is theReformed Analogy of Faith at its best. The biblical means of interpretingscripture is to view the scripture within its historical, contextual, linguisticand comparative sense. First, we interpret scripture by its historicity. At whattime in history is the passage dealing with? Does the historical situationcontribute to the outcome of what the author is attempting to communicate? Next isthe context by which we mean that the passage under consideration must be viewedin its immediate and overall context. We cannot separate out verses in order toarrive at our own presuppositional conclusions as to the meaning of a passage.This author has seen that a good 90% of the time, when individuals wronglyinterpret scripture it is largely due to the fact that they are ignoring theimmediate or overall (wider) context of a passage. When we speak of the necessityof linguistics as a part of the hermeneutical science, we of course are to beobserving the meaning of the language in which the passage was originally written.The Bible was written in Hebrew in the Old Testament, with sections of Aramaic (aclose congnate language to Hebrew), in portions of the book of Daniel and Ezra.The New Testament was written entirely in Greek. We have made the observationbefore that the original languages do not always translate well into otherreceptor languages. Particularly, the English language is dependent upon the useof several of its words in an attempt to translate a single Greek or Hebrew wordthat is in accordance with the original intention of the biblical authors. SomeEnglish translations have been successful at this, some have not. Sometimes acombination of different translations and versions on a single passage make up thebest most comprehensive analysis of the given passage. The best way in seeking outthe inspired original meaning is of course to be able to work with the passage inits original Hebrew or Greek. Finally, we must interpret scripture by comparing itwith other clearer passages of scripture that give light to the author’s originalmeaning. This hermeneutic contains within it the understanding of the perspecuityof the scriptures. That is that the Bible is basically clear on its face and canbe understood by most who will take a view that involves first of all, faith inthe Lord Jesus Christ, so that one may understand the words of the Spirit (1 Cor.2:14) and then the attempt through upright God honoring study to arrive at theoriginally intended conclusions. Some passages of scripture are more difficultthan others to understand. They certainly require all four of the abovehermeneutical steps in order to rightly interpret them. For the most part, theBible is not difficult to understand in its overall theme of its history of man’ssin and God’s redemption through Christ.An individual who considers themself to be “Preterist” uses all of the abovehermeneutics and holds out for the scriptures themselves to be the proto-teacherof God’s will and the sustainer of the truth of all subjects contained therein.The Preterist sees the creeds of the historic church of Christ (Nicene, Apostles,Athanasian, and Confessions of Dort, Belgic, Heidelberg, and Westminster) as beingrelevant assistants to the attaining to the truths that the scriptures docommunicate. The Preterist believes that the scriptures are the final arbiters ofall biblical discussions. While the creeds and canons of the church historically,do reflect the history of the church as she has dogmatized the revelation of thesubjects of scripture, the creeds and canons in themselves do not constitute thefinal revelation of what God means by what he has stated in the scriptures. Inother words, while the Preterist recognizes that the creeds, council andconfessions do play an important role within the church, neither the
aforementioned nor their authors are to be considered equal to the scriptures inrevelation and authority. They do represent what we call orthodoxy (straight orright thinking) relative to what the synodical participants have establishedthrough diligent study and reflection. However, the subject of eschatology (thestudy of the things of the end) is not a subject for which any kind of ahistorical church synod or council has ever convened over. Again, let us repeatfor the record, that while the creeds and their confessions do containconclusionary statements about eschatology, it is to be understood that thoseconclusions were never arrived at in the same way that the other doctrinal itemshad been arrived at. In other words, while synods and councils have convened oversubjects like the deity of Christ, the nature of the Trinity, the government ofthe church, the truths of justification by faith, and others, there has yet to bea Church wide council convened over the issue of eschatology. The ReformedTheologian Louis Berkhof has stated it this way:“The doctrine of last things never stood in the center of attention, is one of theleast developed doctrines, and therefore calls for no elaborate discussion. (Sowhy do Reformed non-Preterist theologians argue with Reformed Preteriststheologians about it - author) Its main elements have been rather constant, andthese constitute practically the whole dogma of the church respecting futurethings. Occasionally deviating views occupied a rather important place intheological discussion, but these were never incorporated in the confessions ofthe Church. It may be that, as Dr. Orr surmises, we have now reached that point inthe history of dogma in which the doctrine of the last things will receive greaterattention and be brought to further development.” (Berkhof, 1937, Pg. 259)This eye opening statement was not made by a Preterist, but one standing firmlywithin the Reformed Amillennial camp, who was and is accepted by all within saidcamp (no matter which eschatological persuasion they represent) as a well quotedtheologian of authority. Not only does he point out that historically, we have yetto see a church wide study made of the doctrine of eschatology, but that to do sois of necessity as we are yet to come to an authoritative conclusion to theargument.Finally, what it is that the creeds and confessions do contain regarding what maybe able to be called a yet-future-to-us Second Coming, is arrived at by simplycarrying over the futuristic statements of the New Testament authors, withouttaking into consideration the limitations relative to the historical time in whichthey are contextually attributed. In other words each Parousia/Second Comingpassage is limited in its scope of fulfillment to the first century by itsinherent eschatology regarding the time and nature statements that each contain.To ignore these facts is to virtually ignore the very rules of biblicalinterpretation that were pointed to earlier and to go on allowing generation aftergeneration of believers to have to re-interpret the meaning of texts of scripturethat were originally meant to be understood as having their conclusion within thefirst century of our present era.II. What is a Preterist?Webster’s Dictionary in its 1913 Unabridged Edition, says that a Preterist iseither a believer or “a theologian that believes that the contents of theApocalypse (Book of Revelation) are fulfilled.” This is a good, simple definition.A definition, by the way, that one who still believes in a yet- future- to- usfulfillment cannot claim for themselves. The above definition does not leave roomfor believing that “most” of the prophetic items in Revelation are fulfilled. No,in order to be a Dictionary defined Preterist, one must believe that theApocalypse IS already fulfilled in its entirety. There is no room within theDictionary definition of “Preterist,” for one to be a “partial preterist,” forinstance. Any kind of a preterism that contains events within it that are stillfuture is just another kind of futurism.The preceding information here given was designed to alert the reader to the
historical and thereby contemporary problem within the field of eschatology sothat we might now be able to present the scriptural reasons for why we believe thePreterist view to be the correct understanding of the teaching of the scriptures.For our current purposes in this book, we will limit our short study to theteaching of Christ in particular and ask that the reader examine the rest of theNew Testament in the light of what they discover here about Christ’s eschatology.Let us remark briefly that one of the most destructive mistakes one can make whenapproaching the text of scripture, is to do so with one’s mind made up as to it’smeaning by embracing a presuppositional paradigm in advance. When we say“presupposition,” we are not referring to approaching the scriptures believing asa presupposition that they are the word of God, or that they speak of a divineChrist or other doctrines that have already been established as to there inherentorthodoxy. What we are referring to has to do with the eschatological plane thatassumes a still-yet-future-coming of the Lord Jesus back to the earth to us, postA.D. 70. We will demonstrate why this is not only erroneous, but that it can befatally erroneous as to ones outcome in eschatological study. When we use the word“fatal” we do not mean to imply that if one believes in a yet future SecondComing, that they in some way will have their salvation (justification) placed injeopardy. In the same way, it is equally untrue that if one does not believe in afuture Parousia, that they are to be considered in some way outside of the pale ofsalvation. (justification) There is simply no scripture that teaches or any wayimplies that faith in the Second Coming of Christ is necessary in order for one tobe justified from their sins and thereby possess eternal life. This is anunfortunate and flagrant abuse that is made by some outside of the Preterist campwho, because they are unable to demonstrate their accusations of “heresy” from thescripture relative to the Preteristist position, end up having to use threats andintimidation in order to keep themselves and those whom they lead under the bannerof futurism. This is not only unnecessary, it is exegetically dishonest. There isand must be room for discussion and even disagreement (1 Corinthians 11:19) inorder that we might come to the biblical conclusions surrounding Preterism and allothers areas of doctrinal disagreement. Futurism is a demonstrable presuppositionthat blinds the otherwise good student of God’s word from coming to a historical,contextual and linguistic conclusion that honors God. We are all called to beBereans who search the scriptures daily to see if these things are so. (Acts17:11) The creeds and confessions of the Church have a useful place for enablinglearning of the dogmatized truths of scripture. But the creeds and confessions arenot static. They are living and active and thereby moveable instruments ofinstruction that must be allowed to be changed when solid study and reflectionwarrants it. This has been done before. The criteria for change within the creedsand confessions have precedent.What was Christ’s Understanding of the Timing of His Second Coming?Matthew 10:23As we begin our study in the timing of the Second Coming of Christ, we need tobegin with the words of Christ Himself. Here is where critics of Preterist thoughtseriously drop the ball. Those who disagree with Preterist eschatology must beginwith the understanding that Christ had regarding His own Second Coming as it isenunciated in the New Testament. The rest of New Testament eschatology falls intoplace once it is understood where the apostles and writers of the New Testamentgot their doctrine of imminency. All of the teachings of the epistles that dealwith the subject of the Parousia are simply inspired extrapolations on theteachings that Christ gave during His earthly ministry. In the case of Matthew10:23 we read the following:“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: For verily I sayunto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
What is the Preterist View?
Dr. Kelly N. Birks gives a brief explanation of what the Preterist view is.
2.3K
Reads
7
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
