Morrison Lee has a background in Communications, Theology, Teaching, Counselling and Analytic

Philosophy. He lectures in Rational Preterism – the measurement of Preterism by right thought.

Seven Problems with Futurist Theology.

The Objective Measure of ‘Biblical’ Endtimes.
by
Morrison Lee

‘Christianity cannot take the place of thinking, but it must be founded upon it.’
Albert Schweitzer

In biblical endtimes there are, most simply, three competing schemas of

prophetic fulfillment of the second coming and end of the world, each with variations;
firstly the oldest view in time is the (2nd century ) Future-to-us view, secondly the newly
combined (20th century view) Partial-Preterist, and thirdly the slightly older (c. 18th
century view) Preterist (ie. past). Together they teach all, some and none respectively.

1) All: The Future-to-us view asserts all the biblical facts of the second coming
point to our Future, and no facts suggest a first century fulfillment.

2) Some: The compromise Partial some- past, some-future) view asserts some
facts are fulfilled past, and some point to a future fulfillment.

3) None: The Preterist view asserts no biblical prophecy remains to be fulfilled:

All facts declare expressly, a fulfillment in the first century generation.

All three views agree that the biblical canon is authoritative and complete. There is
common agreement here. The following discussion will weigh and consider these three
views against the only objective measure of truth: a correspondence between statement
and fact in the same terms. The format is based on IMRAC: Issue, Material facts, Rule,
Apply rule to facts, Conclusion.

ISSUE: The Second Coming &Objectivity. The Measure of a

‘Biblical’ View.

A great deal has been written on these three views and a multitude of verses quoted on
each side, but as yet no common objective determination may be made – there is no
finish line, so to speak. Futurists and Partial-Preterists argue their own conclusions are
‘biblical,’ so the precise point at issue here is objectivity: what is the measure of
‘biblically true?’ There are five common measures of Truth in religion: traditional
orthodoxy –creeds- as a measure of truth, practical usefulness - familiarity of verses,
evidence theory of truth – what I can prove, logical consistency with my beliefs.

Is ‘Biblical’ orthodoxy measured by traditional creeds? Is ‘biblical’ practical measured

by usefulness and self-interest? Is ‘biblical’ measured by the quantity of verses quoted? Is
it the evidence theory of truth: ‘known to be true, or my verses versus your verses?’ Or is
‘biblical’ the consistency theory of truth: If it is consistent with our beliefs it is true! How
can we objectively determine the ‘biblical’ explanation?’

MATERIAL FACTS OF END TIME:

For simplicity of discussion both: (1) all future and (2) some partially-future are grouped
together, as both share the principal assertion of a future –to-now second coming 2,000
years removed from the first century. Preterism (3) denies this span of time.

Q. What are the seven main assertions of Futurist theology?

1. 2,000 year period of time asserted.
2. Jesus’ coming ‘Personally’ ‘Physically’ and ‘Visibly’ asserted.
3. ‘Delay’ in coming asserted.
4. ‘Gaps’ between verses and passages asserted
5. Jesus coming asserted to be ‘literal.’
6. ‘Many comings’ asserted by partial school.
7. Asserts Jerusalem temple to be destroyed future to 20-- AD.

Q. What are the seven main assertions of Preterist theology?

1. Things promised and written to that generation fulfilled to them.
2. All things to come upon [Jesus’] generation. Mtt 23:36
3. All things fulfilled in [Jesus’] generation. Lk 21:32
4. [Jesus’] generation not to pass away till all fulfilled. Mtt 24:34
5. Jerusalem temple and end of age occur coevally Mtt 24:1-3
6. Jerusalem temple destroyed in AD70. History (Josephus. ‘Wars’)
7. 2,000 years not a biblical, essential, nor even a necessary concept.

THE RULE FOR OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE:

How to find a reliable theory of truth? The problem with the five measures of truth
offered earlier is that they are all subjective and not independent of their owner’s
interests. For example, Orthodoxy mistakes tradition for divine truth: Practical mistakes
self interest for divine truth: Quantity mistakes personal selection for divine truth: The
Evidence theory mistakes ‘known to be true’ for divine truth: The Consistency theory of
truth mistakes logic alone for divine truth.
The problem is that it is impossible for all of these views to agree when none of them are
objective. They each arise from their own party interest. However all three groups of
believers accept the bible as authoritative and complete. Other standards as creeds,
opinions, self interest, familiarity, and logic alone are unnecessary. The bible alone is
accepted as the cognitive base of Christian ideas and the factual base for this enquiry.
The next question is how to determine biblical knowledge reliably?

Rational enquirers rely on observation and our senses to lead them to reliable knowledge.
All true knowledge is a reliable acquaintance with facts, and all biblical knowledge is an
acquaintance with true biblical facts by observation. A thing cannot be said to be
‘biblical’ unless there are observable biblical statements in the same terms to declare it
so. Thus the only objective measure of biblical-reality in this study is a correspondence
of statement with biblical fact in the same terms. (Eg. The statement, ‘John is 180 cms
tall.’ is true if and only if a metric measuring-tape determines his height from sole to the
crown of his head at 180cms.

Another example of a correspondence between statement and fact: “I have five fingers
up.” This statement is true if-and-only-if I, (Morry Lee) have five (the value 1.1.1.1.1)
digits (fingers at the end of the arm) pointing upward. (vertically). I look at the facts - my
hand. All fingers are pointing up. This is a correspondence between statement and fact in
the same terms.

In relation to end times it means that ‘2000 years’ can only be ‘biblical’ if a
chronological term equal to 2000 years is observable in the facts. Again a ‘delay’ is only
‘biblical’ if a delay is observable in the bible - the rule here is correspondence between
statement and fact in the same terms. Which of the three explanations is ‘biblical’ by the
only objective measure?

APPLY CORRESPONDENCE RULE TO FUTURISM AND

PRETERISM:

Futurism. What is observed when we apply the rule – do twenty-first century statements
correspond with bible facts in the same terms – to the yet future view?

1. No 2,000 year facts are observable in the bible.

2. ‘Personally’ ‘physically’ and ‘visibly’ asserted, but ‘personally’ ‘physically’ and
‘visibly’ nowhere occur in scripture. Source;Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.
3. ‘Delay’ in coming asserted, but second coming ‘delay’ asserted by no bible author
4. ‘Gaps’ between verses and passages asserted, but no ‘gaps’ stated by bible authors
5. Jesus coming ‘literal.’ ‘Literal’ occurs nowhere in the biblical datum.
6. ‘Many comings’ asserted by partial school. ‘Comings’ occurs only once in Ezek
43:11 with no observable relation to second coming.
7. Mtt 24:1-2. No Jerusalem temple exists in 2010 to be destroyed.
#1 Literal. In futurism the passing of 2000 years post first-coming is the essential
concept, yet no single biblical fact exists to prove #1. The 2000 years is a deduction
based on the assumption; “His coming is literal.” 2000 years is nowhere observable in
the facts.

#2 ‘Personally’ ‘physically’ and ‘visibly’ in the statements of #2 are nowhere observable

in an exhaustive concordance of the KJV bible. I challenge the reader to do the
experiment with Strong’s concordance. For example Futurism asserts Jesus will return
‘Physically.’ In Strongs’ the term ‘Physically’ should occur alphabetically between
‘Phylacteries’ and ‘Physician,’ correct? ‘Physically’ is not there, because no such term as
‘Physically’ occurs in the bible! Do the experiment: look it up - ‘Phylacteries’ in Strong’s
is followed immediately by ‘Physician.’ It is not there because it is a human invention,
and similarly ‘Personally’ and ‘Visibly’, yet these three terms lie at the bedrock
foundation of futurism.

#3 ‘Delay.’ Again the assertion of a ‘delay’ in the second coming corresponds to no

observable bible fact in the same terms, in fact the bible author of Hebrews asserts
precisely the contrary of #3, that there would be no delay. Heb 10:37 - ‘For yet a little
while and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry’ [delay] Statement #3 of
futurism fails on two counts of objectivity: (i) it cannot justify itself on evidence and (ii)
it actually denies the bible evidence; ‘He shall not tarry.’ [delay]. This ‘biblical’ proof
fails to convince the candid enquirer, yet it is essential to the ‘literal and therefore future’
theory.

#4 ‘Gaps.’ Here no objective division between passages is made by any biblical author,
nor are any gaps or divisions observable in biblical time facts at those places where a
future division is supposed to occur. Lacking biblical statements for these claims, they
must remain conjectural and merely mental constructs to prop up literalism.

#5 ‘Literal.’ Figurative language is a legitimate literary device employed by the Hebrew

prophets, especially Jesus Himself in parables and in dialogue to His disciples: “These
things I have spoken to you in figurative language.” Jn 16:25. His disciples replied: “Lo
now you are not speaking using a figure of speech.” Jn 16:29. Literalism is not a rule
stated in the biblical datum, nor is only and always literal axiomatic, nor can it work in
practice. Literalism was precisely the point of confusion amongst the Pharisees: “This
figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand..” Jn 10:6 Literalism
led them into confusion To quote the moderate position of Alexander Campbell: ‘Now
while we agree that there is but one meaning in every passage, we are not prepared to
say that meaning is always literal.’ (Campbell 1831, p 431)

#6 ‘Many Comings,’ is a claim for multiple second comings. The claim corresponds to no
relevant observable statement in scripture. Comings is only found once in the entire
canon in Ezek 43:11, and merely relates to the progress of priests and their goings out
thereof and their comings in therefrom, a context completely disconnected from any
discussion of the second coming. Further, a plurality of comings makes the term a
‘second’ coming a meaningless nonsense. Are the many ‘second’ comings?’ eg. a ‘third’
or ‘fourth’ ‘second’ comings? This is an invention to prop-up the lack of facts for a C.21st
theory. Futurism is wholly absent in the facts it claims to represent.

#7 No Jewish temple. Futurisms claim Jesus will return in our generation to destroy the
temple, but for 2000 years they have consistently failed to explain the absence of a
temple! There is simply no Jewish temple in Jerusalem for Jesus to return to! This is a
glaring problem. In Matthew 24:1-2 Jesus related the destruction of the Jerusalem temple
to the end of the age and a coming in clouds. (judgment). In Jesus’ own generation (AD
70) the holy city of Jerusalem was utterly desolated and never rebuilt. (See Josephus’
Antiquities and Wars of the Jews). Futurism ignores this historical fulfillment on the
Jerusalem temple in Jesus’ own generation, and places more credibility on the scuttlebutt
of modern-day doomsayers in daily newspapers. A twenty-first century Futurist view of
the temple is unworkable.

But take - just for a minute - a first-century view of the Jerusalem temple and the end of
the age as a working hypothesis. What is observed?

Revelation’s Time Particulars seen in Historical Sample of Preterism.

Explaining Jesus’ first century prophecy (Mt 24:1-2 ) with Josephus’ Wars (first century
history) informs us the Mosaic temple disappeared at the end of the Mosaic age, in time
in the first century generation, exactly as the Lord foretold. The eye-witnesses account
states that from AD 66 1/2- 70 the Romans reduced the entire land of Judea to smoke and
ashes. Titus’s four legions (The V, X, XII, XV; an estimated 30,000 professional soldiers
with auxiliaries, cavalry and artillery) advanced from the North burning all the land
behind them. The smoke was so thick it blocked the sun by day and darkened the moon
by night. In 70 they surrounded Holy Jerusalem and razed the city, royal palace and holy
temple to its foundations in a five-month siege. This final decimation of a nation finalized
a war lasting, in time; three and a half years, forty two months, 1260 days, or time, times
and half a time. It was a complete, total and utter desolation of a 2,000 year old
civilization, just as Jesus had foretold when he cried: ‘Woe to the rich, and woe to the
hypocrites, woe to them with child, woe to the world also.’ (Mt 23; 18:7).

Jerusalem would regret its part in crucifying the son of man who uttered these ‘Woes’
because of a remarkably timely and prescient drama that played out from AD 63 to AD
70. It recalls the three woes of Revelation 11:14. The Galilean governor and real-time
witness records this inexplicable account of a ‘type’ of Jesus who also uttered ‘woes in
the temple.’

There was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years
before the war began…came to that feast [of] tabernacles, [and] in the temple began to cry
aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice
against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a
voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in
all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace ..took up
the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for
himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same
 words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers…brought him to the Roman procurator,
[Albinus] where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any
supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone
possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when
Albinus asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he
made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till
Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed
before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them
while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his
premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that
beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all
men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was
the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months,
without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage
in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he
cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy
house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of
one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the
very same presages he gave up the ghost. (Wars 6:5:3)

Jerusalem would regret its part in crucifying the Son of God. “His blood be on us and on
our children.” (Mtt 27:25) “He is coming with clouds and every eye will see Him, even
those who pierced Him.” (Rev 1:7)

A first century view of the temple relates prophetic events to historical events in the same
generation. Jesus asked the Jews: “What will the vineyard owner do to those [wicked]
vine-growers [who killed the son]?” (Matt 21:33-40) They answered; “He will bring
those wretches to a wretched end..” (21:41) and “THEY understood He was speaking
about THEM.” (21:45) They were right. The end of first-century Jerusalem was a
wretched end.

In time the destruction of the temple occurred exactly 1,000 years after it was built, in
time forty years after Jesus prophesied, in time on exactly the same day as the destruction
of the first temple. The Mosaic temple signified the collapse of the Mosaic heavens in a
great judgment. Vague hints found in newspapers cannot supply a chronological context
with this degree of specificity and correspondence with biblical fact.

(Here I have deliberately avoided the unanimously consistent prophetic time-evidence

found in nearly every New Testament book crying fulfillment ‘in this generation,’ ‘some
of you standing here shall not pass away,’ ‘the judge is at the door’ ‘the parousia
(coming) is at hand,’ and imminent time facts: ‘soon,’ ‘near,’ ‘at hand,’ or ‘quickly.’-to
focus on historical time-evidence)

Preterist Description of the Temple – Revelation’s descriptions in an Historical Sample.

Unprecedented Destruction since its Foundation, False prophets, Famine and
Cannibalism.
Jesus said the destruction would be unprecedented in scope. (Mtt 24:21) The eye-witness
historian Josephus described the demise of the Jewish nation as the greatest [national]
misery since its foundation, (Wars 6:8:408) in which the number of those which perished
[over 1,100,000] exceeded all the destructions ..ever brought on the world (Wars
6:9:429). It was a time when false prophets abounded, (Wars 6:5:285) “the daily
sacrifice” failed (Wars 6:2:94) when famine affected the estimated 3,000,000 people
trapped inside the besieged city, (Wars 5:12) a famine so terrible people searched the
sewers for dung, (Wars 5:13:571) and one mother boiled and ate her own child for food
(Wars 6:3:207 ).

Economics, Fire and Blood.

History describes it as a time when economic markets were inverted, when gold was
cheap and food precious; a measure of wheat was sold for a talent of money (Wars
5:13:571) when the gold market in neighboring Syria was so flooded with vast quantities
of spoils gotten by plundering the temple that silver was devalued, and that a pound
weight of gold was sold at half its former value. (Wars 6:7:1). It was a time when men
sought by death [begged to die by sword over death by starvation], but found it not,
(Wars 5:12:517) and it is described as a time when fire and blood mingled together, the
blood in the lanes in such quantities that the whole city ran with blood, to such a degree
indeed that the fire of many of the houses was quenched with these men’s blood (Wars
6:8:406ff).

Signs, Trumpets, Noise, the Plain.

The destruction of Mosaic civilization was attended by earthquakes (Wars 1:19:370 ) and
signs in the heavens: (Antiquities 17:6:167 Eclipse, comet) a time when the sounds of
trumpets (of the Roman legions. Wars 6:1:68) and the noise of horses (Roman cavalry.
Wars 3:2:33) were sounds to inspire dread and torment, when the great plain in front of
Jerusalem (The plain of Scopus. Wars 5:2:67, 5:3:106ff) was leveled even wider by the
four legions as numerous as locusts to make a greater plain for battle.

Noise, Hail of Stones weighing a Talent.

The entire city was shut up, the national population captured in a kind of net. (Wars
6:1:160) The noise of battle was tremendous. Crashing stones mingled with shouts and
trumpets and clashes of swords and cries of the dying. Jerusalem was surrounded by 160
engines of war: towers, battering rams, and artillery firing stones, lances, arrows and
fire at the wall night and day for five months. (Wars 3:7:9) The Roman Xth legion was
camped on the Mount of Olives. Their machines could fling stones weighing a talent
(25kgs) through the heavens for 400 meters and still have enough momentum to kill one
man and the next three behind him . The battering engines of the XVth legion tried to
forced a breach in a corner wall near the tower of Hippicus. (Wars 5:7:4-5)

International Unrest: Kingdom against Kingdom.

Preterism further informs us it was an unsettled world revolved by wars and rumors of
wars, a world that saw the Roman government in great internal disorder by the continual
changes of its rulers, (AD 68, the year of four Roman emperors; Nero, Galba,
Otho,Vespasian) and understood that every part of the habitable earth under them was in
an unsettled and tottering condition.. (Wars 7:4:79.)
Futurist theology gives no clue as to the relation between Jesus’ prophecy and His own
generation. It attaches no significance at all to this near correspondence. It denies any
relation between first century prophecy and first century fulfillment, revealing that
historical poverty is the true basis of futurism. The need to re-build a 1st century temple
(so it may be re-destroyed in the 21st century) props up a theory in crisis, and which
lacks any facts for its assertions and shows no sign of embarrassment at its
contradictions, yet makes a positive and dogmatic claim of certainty.

These problems are further evidence of Futurism’s weak explanatory power: it cannot
explain the deeper significance of bible facts. These seven topics are major tenets of the
futurist theory of the second coming.

Preterism. What is observed when we apply the rule; do first century statements
correspond with bible facts in the same terms, to the Preterist view?

1. Things promised and written to that generation had a first meaning to them.
A standard principle of modern historiography.
2. All things to come upon [Jesus’] generation. Mtt 23:36
Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms.
3. All things fulfilled in [Jesus’] generation. Lk 21:32
Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms
4. [Jesus’] generation not to pass away till all fulfilled. Mtt 24:34
Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms
5. Jerusalem temple and end of age occur coevally Mtt 24:1-3
Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms
6. Old covenant of Moses located in Jerusalem temple. 1 Kgs 8-9
Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms
7. Jerusalem temple-covenant destroyed in AD70 Josephus. Wars of the Jews
Correspondence between historical statement and biblical fact in nearly the same
terms.

In Preterism tragic Jewish prophecy (Revelation) is explained by tragic Jewish history.

Preterism has a very simple basis:

#1 Things promised and written to that generation had a first meaning to them.
Simplicity of premise - in thought the simplest view is always to be preferred. Eg. Jesus
said:“Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.” Mtt 23:35 To
say it is to understand it fact-for-fact in Jesus’ own generation. This is a basic rule in
historiography. The simplicity principle is called Occam’s razor, where no more
complexity is introduced than what the facts allow. No 2000 year theory is required.
This is correspondence between statement and fact in the same terms.

#2 Correspondence. Preterism accounts for genuine time facts relative to the time they
were written, thus the generation spoken to is the same generation as ‘this generation’
spoken to, and to whom the things were promised. This is express ‘fact-for-fact
correspondence,’ it is explicit. (The same also with statements #3 and #4.)
#5 Asserts that the Jerusalem temple - which contained the institutions of Moses - also
maintained them. This means the Mosaic covenant is in-and-with the Mosaic temple, and
the temple supports the Mosaic age. The conclusion is that when you end the Mosaic
temple you end the Mosaic age in fact. Christ’s work on the cross truncated the Mosaic
covenant and made it obselete. (Eph 2:15; Heb 8:13) After Jesus’ death in AD 30 the
covenant had a life-span of just 40 years -and counting down - until its complete
disappearance. (Heb 8:13) This is correspondence between statement and fact in the same
terms.

#6 Explains the reason for #5 - the temple and the age end together – the reason being
that the covenant was located in-and-with the Jerusalem temple. (1 Kings 8 – 9:1-9). The
Mosaic covenant disappeared in AD 70 because the Mosaic temple that supported the
covenant disappeared in AD 70. (Josephus). This view explains the plain facts of
Matthew 24:1-2 and all the connections between; the destruction of the temple, the end of
the age, and a coming in clouds that was in ‘this generation.’ This is correspondence
between statement and fact in the same terms.

#7 Asserts that Jesus’ divinely revealed the immediate future to His own generation. A
close comparison of Revelation’s Holy City and the contemporary historian of the Holy
City (Josephus) demonstrates Jesus was no false prophet: rather it demonstrates His word
was fulfilled in every biblical respect. Eg. Revelation 11:2 predicts the ‘near,’ ‘at hand’
end of the Holy City and its temple. (Jerusalem is always the Holy City in scripture.)
Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed in that generation. (Josephus. Wars of the Jews)
This is correspondence between statement and fact in the same terms, and restores to
Jesus the integrity and prophetic credibility stolen from Him by Futurism.

A closer inspection a Preterist (past view) has far more power to explain the temple’s
historical and redemptive significance. In doing this it possesses a firm foundational base
in observable fact.

CONCLUSION OF COMPARISON:

The only objective rule for determining Truth is by a correspondence between statement
and biblical fact in the same terms. Adjudged by this rule a Preterist view crosses the
finish line first ahead of the other two competing theories. First century (Preterist)
assertions are, by observation, legitimate statements of biblical authors.

Where biblical objectivity is measured by biblical fact, the yet future claims of Futurists
and the awkward, comprise Partial Futurist-Partial Preterist view are embarrassingly
absent in every particular.

Futurism springs from a rigid literalism which magically conjures: a delay not observable
in the datum, gaps which correspond to no biblical datum in the same terms, multiple and
fictitious comings which correspond to no biblical datum in the same terms, and the
remarkable prediction of the reappearance and re-destruction (of a temple destroyed 2000
years ago) in one generation.

The most disturbing particular is that none of this speculation matches observable biblical
fact (in-the-same-terms) at any single point, yet its followers claim infallible certainty for
it. The basis for all this mental machinery is literalism. The strongest proof of Futurists is
the presumptive question: Jesus hasn’t come back yet has He? This may satisfy a simple
mind unwilling to weigh its own failings, but fails to move a mind committed to an
impersonal investigation of Divine Knowledge and informed by observable facts.

The main problem here is a 2000 year history of failed prophecies of the second coming
in every generation, and denying it to the very generation to whom Jesus promised it.
(Matt 23:35, 34; 26:64) For twenty centuries Futurism has ignored the past and gazed off
into the dim tomorrow offering fictions for facts, conjectures for proof, and excuses for
the ‘delay’. The whole theory totters on its slender and invisible ‘literal-and-physical-
and-therefore-future’ foundation. It reminds one of a rickety old shack built on a beach
and, (over twenty-one centuries) propped up against collapse by broken beams held
together with the rusty nails by each succeeding generation, and taped up with seven
special rules. These inventions are not unlike the crystal spheres, the epicycles and
deferents used to prop up the old astronomy. They too were visible only to believers.

Futurism has not worked, it cannot work, and it will not work. Something is broken.

But a serious question I’d like to ask those who hold to Futurism: “How do you identify
end time facts?” again, “How do you determine what is solid reliable, and biblical fact?”
This is the entire focus of this paper. Here I have nominated and tested the only objective
test of truth: a correspondence between statement and fact in the same terms. One may
believe one is right, but it does not make it true. One may believe anything. It’s not what
is said that matters, but what only can be demonstrated. True facts are the only measure
of objective Knowledge, and without biblical facts there can be no objective theory.

I will close with a quote from Professor Sir Karl Popper who questioned how people
unreasonably ‘knew things’ in the absence of any facts. He said without real facts there
can be no rational defense, but rather in their absence;

‘Our ‘knowledge’ is unmasked as being not only in the nature of belief, but of
rationally indefensible belief – of an irrational faith.’ (Popper 1972 p5)

One may wear the mask of ‘Truth-seeker’, but a belief that cannot be defended by right
reason from true facts is unmasked as an irrational belief. Action without thought may be
harmful, but belief without thought is perilous. Schweitzer’s words recall us to the mature
duty of open-minded and rational enquiry after Truth:

‘Christianity cannot take the place of thinking, but it must be founded upon it.’
While little known and unfamiliar at present, the theory of Preterism possesses the
singular merit of objectivity at its base - it corresponds to and saves the appearances of
the biblical facts. I recommend it to the impartial Christian enquirer.

-ooOOoo-

morry_lee@yahoo.com.au
SEPTEMBER 2014

Campbell, A. The Millennial Harbinger. 1831 Reprinted College press 1987, Mo..
Popper, K.R. Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge, 5th ed revised 1989 UK.
Popper,K.R. Objective Knowledge. Oxford Press, 1972. USA
Schweitzer, A. An Anthology. (Joy, C.R. ed.) Black, A. & C. London
Strong, J. Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nelson 1990. USA

Quotations from the New American Standard Bible.