Just what kind of Preterist might I be? (and how about you)?

[RickC]

Greetings,

As a preamble to the thread, I'm offering a quotation from religioustolerance{dot}org. In their defining of "Christianity," which in RT.Org parlance includes orthodox and heterodox sub-groups, the following was submitted:

Differences among Christian faith groups are so great that some observers have suggested that a useful way of classifying Christian groups is to view them as a number of separate religions with different beliefs and practices, who share:

1. The name "Christianity,"
2. The text of the Bible, and
3. Not a great deal else.

I don't want to discuss or debate which groups of preterists are genuinely Christian, or what we might call "truly saved." Or to put it another way; the purpose of this thread isn't to question who is saved and who isn't.

At the same time, I do want to discuss the various kinds of preterists. Looking at numbers 1-3 {above}, and if one is basically familiar with the varieties of preterisms, one can't miss that preterist groups do consider others as heterodox {and/or heretical} or orthodox {and/or having correct doctrine}. This goes to varying degrees, depending on what is being talked about.

For example, there are differing kinds of "partial-preterists" {PPs}.
PPs are in general agreement on what has been considered essential teachings of historical and/or orthodox Christianity: Yet they vary on certain eschatological details. PPs are in a sub-grouping of 1-2, above. They have the same Bible and consider each other to be "in Christianity," though they interpret it somewhat differently on certain relatively minor details in eschatology. They agree on a great deal else {an amended #3, above}.

But also, some PPs see full-preterists {FPs} as "not being in Christianity." That is, that FPs aren't truly or legitimately saved. This accusation goes BOTH ways: I've been personally "told" I've been "deceived by the devil" by FPs on the internet! On this {new} forum the "preterist debate" hasn't gone this far, to my knowledge.

Again, this thread isn't about questioning "Who's really saved?"

At the same time, reconsidering numbers 1-3 {above}; it would be safe to say that due to doctrinal {beliefs} differences, the "level of fellowship" between preterist sub-groups could take fellowship to a point of: less, less and less, on to minimal, to practically non-existent. Churches have split over the major differences between full- and partial-preterism.

End of preamble.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay, having said all that, I now proceed to the kinds of preterisms there are. How many are there? I don't know, because new sub-groups {of sub-groups} have been developing over the last couple of decades or so.

Obviously, the major distinctions between FPs and PPs are there for all to see....

Also, the varieties inside each of these two opposing camps seem to be multiplying at a fast rate in more recent years. From what I've read and heard, this trend has been much more prevalent in FP groups than in PPs, who haven't been dividing up into nearly as many newer sub-groups. I, and my resources, may be wrong about this, I don't know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Preteristarchive has been a primary resource for my studies in both eschatology in general and preterism in particular {both FP & PP}. The "curator" of preteristarchive, as he calls himself, is Todd Dennis, a former FP now PP. Preteristarchive {PA} offers pro & con on every kind of preterism imaginable from what I've been able to see.

I now offer a general overview based {in part} from info @ PA:

Futurism
- (No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & of Revelation in 1st century - Typological Only)
- Great Tribulation and 2nd Coming in the future
- Kingdom reserved for Jewish people during a future earthly millennium
AND/OR
- Kingdom Not-Yet, with a possible exception that salvation is a "ticket to heaven"

Historical Preterism (HP, partial-preterist, aka, orthodox preterism)
- (Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)
- Great Tribulation past, 2nd Coming future
- Kingdom Already/Not-Yet
- emphasis on future aspect of Kingdom, {finally & fully realized after 2nd Coming}

Modern Preterism (MP, partial/orthodox-preterist, more "realized" in orientation than HP)
- (Major Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)
- similar to HP on Tribulation & 2nd Coming, differs on details and "realized eschatology"
- emphasis on Kingdom Already-Here, {though also Not-Totally-Yet}
- {sidebar: I think Steve Gregg might be an MP, I am, anyway}

Hyper-Preterism (HyP, aka, full-preterism)
- (Absolute Fulfillment of all Bible prophecy - FP and "Resurrection Past" Teachings)
- Fully-Realized-Kingdom-Already...{with no Not-Yet}
- possible exception on Not-Yet: going to heaven upon individual death

A graph with Todd Dennis's reasons for his particular classifications can be found @
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Adminis ... index.html
What I have {above} is somewhat of an amended version of Dennis's.

Note*
Since some full-preterists find the term "hyper-preterist" offensive, I'm using "FP" to designate Full-Preterism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lastly for now.
I'm a former dispensationalist {futurist}, primarily because it was what I was taught. I can confidently say I've never really believed in it as, when I studied eschatology for myself for the first time, I realized I had merely believed in dispensationalism/futurism because it was all I ever knew.

I became amillennialist a long time ago and was a PP before I really understood what the term meant. I vaguely recall hearing about full and partial preterism in Bible college {circa, early 80s} but didn't pursue the study of preterism till about 10 years ago.

I could have started a thread on MP {Moderrn Preterism} and/or "realized eschatology" instead of this one, as it's what I'm especially interested in! I felt like a "backgrounder" thread would probably be the best for starters,

At any rate, MP, a sub-group of PP, seems to be the group I most "fit into." Till recently, I was content to be a PP and refer to myself as such. However, over the last year or so I've been looking into the "idealist-realized" view of the book of Revelation. G.K. Beale, an "Amillennialist-Idealist," who's {online} writings and lectures {mp3s}; they've been nothing short of fascinating and "right on target" to me!

What Beale says "expands" PP to a broader vision of the significance of prophecy and/or eschatology in general. The Amill-Idealist view sees certain past prophetic fulfillments sort of like how FPs do, yet they remain in the PP camp. Modern Preterists see eschatology as "Already/Not-Yet" but at the same time it appears that they/we see the "Already" as more realized {presently here now} than other PPs.

I won't go into it now, but will say that I believe Revelation chs 21-22 are already here in some certain {real} sense! At this point in the thread, and what I've been studying over the last year or so...I'll leave it there for now....

Thanks for reading,

[RickC]

Quick P.S.

I just noticed that preteristarchive {Todd Dennis} lists Steve Gregg and G.K. Beale as HPs {historical/orthodox/partial-preterists}. Also, I haven't studied out MP {Modern Preterism} fully. I may or may not be one myself, Thanks again,

[psychohmike]

Hey Rick...What do you think of D.A. Carson? I've personally found him to be just as fascinating as Beale.

I personally am a full preterist until someone can convince me, from the scriptures, that it is wrong.

Pmike

[steve]

Rick,

Thanks for the interesting summaries. I have never been much into labels, but I can see that some labels I have accepted may be too inexact. I think you are right that I would be a "Modern Preterist" more than a "Historical Preterist," but then, I have not been acquainted with the nuances of the two, so Dennis, being more familiar with them than myself, may have me categorized correctly. Is it okay if I don't know what label best fits me?

[RickC]

Hello Mike,

Hey Rick...What do you think of D.A. Carson? I've personally found him to be just as fascinating as Beale.

I personally am a full preterist until someone can convince me, from the scriptures, that it is wrong.

I haven't read books by Beale or Carson but have listened to both and read some of their online stuff. Carson's mp3s have been on: 1) general apologetics and Christian living, 2) Christ, his atonement, soteriology, and 3) The New Perspective on Paul and/or N.T. Wright's thoughts on same.

I've found Carson's teaching solid overall with two exceptions: 1) when he addresses topics from within his Calvinist viewpoints and, 2) he disagrees with Wright on NPP {with whom I agree}.

I'm hoping to read Beale and Carson soon. Here's a review of a fairly new book they edited and contributed to which is on my wish list. I've read segments online @ amazon on Matthew which was assigned to Craig Blomberg. It was pretty good, delving into "comparing scripture with scripture" {what this book is all-about}.

Book review with back flap endorsements:
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
This link has Carson's audio on the topic at hand. But I don't know what the problem is; many lectures by Carson I've loaded have "skipping" in them. Tom Schreiner's audio is worth a listen to also {he's a charismatic Calvinist}!
Thanks, Mike,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello Steve,

I've heard you're pretty busy these days.
Are you writing a book or something?
Anyway....

Thanks for the interesting summaries. I have never been much into labels, but I can see that some labels I have accepted may be too inexact. I think you are right that I would be a "Modern Preterist" more than a "Historical Preterist," but then, I have not been acquainted with the nuances of the two, so Dennis, being more familiar with them than myself, may have me categorized correctly. Is it okay if I don't know what label best fits me?

What you just said....

And you're welcome for the summaries: In doing them, I'm simply trying to figure out what "label" I am, . Not that I'm needing to know which category I fall under, per se. I suppose it's a nomenclature thing along more technical lines and/or having a working knowledge of what my position is "called." Keeping in mind that differing names are given to same systems of thought, e.g., partial- and orthodox-preterism {same thing}.

Since posting on the thread I've read more on MP. This designation has to do with preterist development during the Reformation era. Hence, "Modern."

Modern Preterism (MP)
A) Umbrella term covering all those who believe that the majority of Bible prophecy was totally fulfilled in the early centuries of the Christian era. Determined by looking at where authors find a "transition" from the past to the future using the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24/25 and the Apocalypse of John. Differs from Full Preterism in that it does not make the Parousia, the General Judgment, nor the General Resurrection events solely of the past.
B) According to known literature, this class emerged during the Reformation and can be seen in a fully developed form at the beginning of the 17th century in the writings of the Jesuit Alcasar -- although it can be seen as the natural progression in Christianity's theological development (particularly anticipated in "Theophany" by Eusebius and certain writings of Origen). This classification includes many who were formerly classified as partial preterists (such as Gary DeMar and Dr. John Brown of Edinburgh) -- as their views are a much more complete presentation of the prophetic fulfillment than those classified in Historical Preterism.
C) Teaches that the bulk of Bible eschatology has sole application to ancient Israel, but that some regards the "last day" -- sometimes that "end" being personal, not historical, in nature. Transitions somewhere in Matthew 25, or near the end of the Apocalypse of John.

On the Counter-Reformational Jesuit, Luis De Alcasar,

"Alcasar was the first to apply Preterism to the Apocalypse with anything like completeness, though it had previously been applied somewhat to Daniel", {Froom, Leroy Edwin, 'The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers', volume 2, page 509 (1954)}.

and

"It has been usual to say that the Spanish Jesuit Alcasar, in his Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalpysi (1614), was the founder of the Præterist School", {Farrar, Frederic, 'The Early Days of Christianity', volume 2 (1882)}.

You went into De Alcasar in your eschatology lectures, noting the "Counter-Reformational characteristics" of his thought and writing. I don't think a majority of modern day preterists {partial or full} "became" preterists after reading De Alcasar {you seldom ever hear him mentioned, leave alone having been read}. Yet what Todd Dennis, Wikipedia, and yourself have pointed out is likley true: Alcasar is probably the "founder" of preterist thinking in terms of historical doctrine or the history of doctrine {thought} in the Church.

I can resonate with much of MP as given {above}.
Re: MP being "....a much more complete presentation of the prophetic fulfillment than those classified in Historical Preterism."
This phrase has something to do with my "embellishments" on MP {as distinguished from HP} in the first post. In doing so, I may be departing to lesser or greater degrees from Todd Dennis's and others' definitions. In listening to Greg Beale's lectures on the last chs of Rev, I recall them being very good, though I "wished" he would've taken things a bit further or delve into the present significance and relevance of Rev 21-22 {which goes back to how I said we are, in some real sense, "already there." I hope to go into this more later on this thread or another}, .

Re: C) Teaches that the bulk of Bible eschatology has sole application to ancient Israel, but that some regards the "last day" -- sometimes that "end" being personal, not historical, in nature.
The last phrase here may be referring to {???} "But he that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved" {Matt 24:13, KJV}. I've considered Jesus may have meant this {simply enduring to the end of one's life}. But this is one of the "nuances" that I haven't decided upon. This meaning is obviously possible and is, othwerwise, true.

If I may indulge myself, as I'm in a learning mode on the thread, :

Historical Preterism (HP)
A) Umbrella term covering all those who believe that only a slight amount of Bible prophecy was totally fulfilled in the early centuries of the Christian era. Determined by looking at where authors find a "transition" from the past to the future using the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24/25 and the Apocalypse of John.
B) This class has roots dating back to the first century, such as in the writings of Barnabus and Clement, and finds greater development in the writings of Justin Martyr and Eusebius. The Catholic and Orthodox churches maintained HP through the Middle Ages. Today's contemporary forms were largely developed in the writings of Calvin, Luther, Grotius and Lightfoot.
C) Teaches that some of the Bible's eschatology was fulfilled by AD70, but that a large portion is yet to be fulfilled at the "last day." Transitions in the Middle of Matthew 24, or in the Middle of the Apocalypse of John.

This is getting incredibly nuanced! And, like yourself, Steve; I'm like "Which one am I?" {getting back to thread title},

Preteristarchives links to J.B. Lightfoot's writings are a "must read" also! {I'm working my way thru them}.

Okay. I'll leave more nuancing for later.
To end the post, a short list of HPs according to Preteristarchive {Todd Dennis}:
G.K. Beale
Steve Gregg
N.T. Wright

One Last Nuance.
Systems and their nomenclatures {names} are a convenient way to talk about what one believes. They're "shorthand" terminologies. In terms of eschatology especially, I've personally discovered that, quite often, about as soon as I identify myself with a certain "camp," I then find some nuance {or detail} in said camp that makes me question "if I'm in the right place." In the last week I've been listening to DD Warren's Preterist Podcast {easily googled}. DDW, a fairly famous partial-preterist, though she uses "orthodox preterist" or just "preterist" as a self-label, says some stuff about basic PP that has made me wonder if I'm looking at eschatology thru a "theological lens" that might be clouding my seeing the text for what it really says {???}. Of all doctrines, eschatology, for me, has been under continual revision/reexamination: it hasn't been "static" {for lack of vocabulary}. I doubt I'll understand it in this lifetime to a point of "fully satisfied arrival"; on eschatology, more so than with other doctrines. However, it's a great thing to know Jesus is coming again {imo} and we will be with him forever!!!

Thanks for reading Steve & all, some more,

[Paidion]

Futurism
- (No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & of Revelation in 1st century - Typological Only)

I am not at all certain that the parenthetical description is characteristic of the majority of futurists. I think most of them, like myself, believe that Matthew 24:1, 2 was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem:

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."

But we notice that His disciples asked Him (verse 3) not only when the temple would be destroyed, but what would be the sign of His coming, and the close of the age.

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

We historic premillenialists believe that Christ's coming and the close of the age are both future. Indeed, we believe His coming will occur at the close of the age. "The age" refers to this present age after which Christ comes and the Kingdom of God enters a new stage in the Millenial Age.

[RickC]

Futurism
- (No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & of Revelation in 1st century - Typological Only)

I am not at all certain that the parenthetical description is characteristic of the majority of futurists. I think most of them, like myself, believe that Matthew 24:1, 2 was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem:

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."

But we notice that His disciples asked Him (verse 3) not only when the temple would be destroyed, but what would be the sign of His coming, and the close of the age.

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

We historic premillenialists believe that Christ's coming and the close of the age are both future. Indeed, we believe His coming will occur at the close of the age. "The age" refers to this present age after which Christ comes and the Kingdom of God enters a new stage in the Millenial Age.

FUTURISM
A) Umbrella term covering all systems of nonfulfillment-based theology, including most contemporary forms of Historicism and Premillennialism, and some Postmillennialism.
B) This class, though represented by authors throughout the centuries, wasn't systematized until the Reformation era.
C) Generally believes that some bible prophecy may have been fulfilled in the first century, but only in a primary sense, which foreshadowed ultimate fulfillment "in the future." Dispensationalism specifically believes that "the rapture" might be any moment now, leading to the Great Tribulation and ultimately ushering in the Millennial Age.

And on the same link:

TRANSITIONS IN THE OLIVET DISCOURSE (MATTHEW 24/25)
Systems Where Fulfillment Transitions From AD70 to EOTW

Futurism: None, All Future

Historical Preterist: Mid-way thru Matt. 24

Modern Preterist: Somewhere in Matt. 25

Hyper {Full} Preterist: None All Past

And again:

Futurism
- (No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & of Revelation in 1st century - Typological {PA has "Types"} Only)
- Great Tribulation and 2nd Coming in the future
- Kingdom reserved for Jewish people during a future earthly millennium
AND/OR
- Kingdom Not-Yet, with a possible exception that salvation is a "ticket to heaven"

Historical Preterism (HP, partial-preterist, aka, orthodox preterism)
- (Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)
- Great Tribulation past, 2nd Coming future
- Kingdom Already/Not-Yet
- emphasis on future aspect of Kingdom, {finally & fully realized after 2nd Coming}

I posted all of this for context.

You're correct that Matt 24 had fulfillment wrt the temple, as all views acknowledge that the prophesied destruction of the temple occurred.

I think what Todd Dennis was trying to say, perhaps, {with his graph} is that 70AD isn't seen as a major transition in futurist schools {as it is full- and partial-preterism}. E.g., when I was a dispensationalist I saw the temple's destruction as "a prophecy that was only for back then" and focused on what I believed to the future aspects of the chapter. This is the general idea I think Dennis was trying to convey....

Do you see a future great tribulation based from Mtt 24? {I'm just curious}.
I don't, but can see the possibility of something like it when the devil is released at the end of the 1,000 years {being amillennial, etc.}.

Btw, if you do not, you might be an Historical Preterist {which would be in keeping with historic premillennialism}.

We historic premillenialists believe that Christ's coming and the close of the age are both future. Indeed, we believe His coming will occur at the close of the age. "The age" refers to this present age after which Christ comes and the Kingdom of God enters a new stage in the Millenial Age.

This is where I see an Already/Not-Yet "overlapping" of the two biblical ages, which could be a thread topic in & of itself. I leave you with:

Hebrews 6 (NASB)
4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted {"having tasted also"} of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted {"did taste" YLT} the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.


Thanks,