PRETERIST---->PRE-MILLENIAL

[Guest]

Pmike,

I think, when TK said that dispensationalism was "the rule," he was not saying that it was normative, nor the rule of orthodoxy. He just meant it is the ruling paradigm among modern evangelicals, which would certainly appear to be true.

I agree that it is hard to go backward, once your eyes have been opened. It really makes one wonder, though, once one has come this far...what lies ahead?

Well...I think what lies ahead is what we do with this knowledge. It's kind of like a gun that shoots in both directions. We need to be careful how we use it.

miKe

[Guest]

steve wrote:

I agree that it is hard to go backward, once your eyes have been opened. It really makes one wonder, though, once one has come this far...what lies ahead?

ok- i've read this over and over again and for the life of me i dont seem to get what you are saying. everybody else does (perhaps it is because i am not yet a partial or full preterist- although i am leaning toward partial).

can you (steve) or somebody elucidate what is meant by the above statement?

thanks!

TK

[Guest]

steve wrote:

I agree that it is hard to go backward, once your eyes have been opened. It really makes one wonder, though, once one has come this far...what lies ahead?

ok- i've read this over and over again and for the life of me i dont seem to get what you are saying. everybody else does (perhaps it is because i am not yet a partial or full preterist- although i am leaning toward partial).

can you (steve) or somebody elucidate what is meant by the above statement?

thanks!

TK

I took this statement to mean that once you challenge the status quo, and through your own study go beyond it, what stronghold (doctrine) will you challenge next?

Like me, for example, and my "strange" ideas.

Todd

[Guest]

steve wrote:

I agree that it is hard to go backward, once your eyes have been opened. It really makes one wonder, though, once one has come this far...what lies ahead?

ok- i've read this over and over again and for the life of me i dont seem to get what you are saying. everybody else does (perhaps it is because i am not yet a partial or full preterist- although i am leaning toward partial).

can you (steve) or somebody elucidate what is meant by the above statement?

thanks!

TK

Ok...Let me see if I can clear things up a little.

Step 1: A new believer goes to a crusade and gets saved. They give him a new believers Bible(New Testament). If they decide to read it they read it very literally just like they would a Tom Clancy novel. They correctly observe that the New Testament on it's own teaches a future coming of Christ.

Step 1 = Futurism = Kindergarten

Step 2: That new believer gets hold of an Old Testament. Reads it and sees the similarity of symbolic language between the prophets and Revelation. Also sees many things that lead them to conclude that the book of Revelation is not to be taken so literally as before and embraces the Amillenial view of eschatology.

Step 2 = Amillenialism = 3rd grade

Step 3: A somewhat seasoned Amillenial believer now having read through the Bible a few times has also now read, "The Essential Josephus," by Paul L. Maier and sees that so much of what happened in and around the war of the Jews was actually fulfillment of Bible prophecies in the New Testament. This seasoned Amillenial believer now embraces Partial Preterism.

Step 3 = Post Millenial*/Partial Preterism = 6th grade

Step 4: Through in depth study of the symbolic nature of the OT prophets and Apocalyptic literature the well studied Partial Preterist believer begins finding less and less passages that actually relate to the second coming of Christ than he had once believed.

Step 4 = Partial Preterist = 9th grade

Step 5: Having now been studying koine greek for 5 years the Partial Preterist comes to realize that so much of what he believed was based on erroneous english interpretations made by well intentioned futurist interpreters over the years. The Partial Preterist finally realizes that there really aren't any passages Old Testament or New that need to be fulfilled. All things are fulfilled in and through Christ.

Step 5 = Full Preterist = 12th grade

Step 6: This Full Preterist finally grasps the idea of what he truly is. A New Creation...That New Creation spoken of in Rev. 21&22. Old things truly have passed away and all things are new. He now has the fulfillment of what was once just a hope.

Step 6 = Graduation


It has been my observation that this is the progression that people who are genuinely seeking the truth take. Not that anyone goes out specifically seeking error but if they don't get tired or stuck along the way by pet doctrines that they like more than eschatology they all end up being either partial or full preterists.

FUTURIST-->AMIL-->POSTMIL-->PART PRET-->FULL PRET!!!

It has also been my observation that not one person has ever gone in the other direction. It's kind of like trying to put the cat back in the bag.


*Postmillenialism not always observed in the progression.

[Guest]

FUTURIST-->AMIL-->POSTMIL-->PART PRET-->FULL PRET!!!

This series of changes have been presented by PsycoMike as a gradual increase in learning. It could also be viewed as a series of backward steps.

It has also been my observation that not one person has ever gone in the other direction.

Consider this series of changes:

disciple of christ --> fundamentalist --> theological liberal --> deist -->
agnostic --> atheist

People have begun as disciples of Christ and have gone through these steps will probably never go back in the reverse direction.
But people who begin somewhere along the way, may go in the opposite direction.

I daresay that could happen with your series as well. If one has started out in the Christian life having been taught to be a full preterest (or anywhere else in the series), such a person may move in the opposite direction as he studies the scriptures and other points of view.

[Guest]

Consider this series of changes:

disciple of christ --> fundamentalist --> theological liberal --> deist -->
agnostic --> atheist

People have begun as disciples of Christ and have gone through these steps will probably never go back in the reverse direction.
But people who begin somewhere along the way, may go in the opposite direction.

I daresay that could happen with your series as well. If one has started out in the Christian life having been taught to be a full preterest (or anywhere else in the series), such a person may move in the opposite direction as he studies the scriptures and other points of view.

I suppose that is possible Pai...But still...I haven't found one yet. If they started out as preterists thats where they stayed. I even contacted Todd Dennis, founder of http://www.preteristarchive.com regarding this. He said in the last 10+ years he has never heard of anyone going in the other direction. And he would be considered an expert on the eschatology and the progression.

Regarding your chart though...I think it has a flaw. Fundamentalist doesn't fit that progression. And most people that are liberals started off that way.

Why don't you join me in the search Pai. Let's find some people that have gone in the other direction.

Maybe you could even test your theory. Come back with some numbers.

Pmike

[Guest]

Hi Pmike,

Just out of curiosity, why have you been focused/fascinated with this topic?

Hasn’t the church as a whole made this transition? All the Preterist history I’ve read seems to indicate that. Correct? If I understand it correctly, the church largely prior to the 1800's had the Preterist root. So as a whole, it seems to have moved from the Preterist perspective to the Futurist.

Thought?

[Guest]

Hi Pmike,

Just out of curiosity, why have you been focused/fascinated with this topic?

Hasn’t the church as a whole made this transition? All the Preterist history I’ve read seems to indicate that. Correct? If I understand it correctly, the church largely prior to the 1800's had the Preterist root. So as a whole, it seems to have moved from the Preterist perspective to the Futurist.

Thought?

The church didn't move from a form of preterism to futurism. Individuals that didn't know any better accepted what they were told. I'm not talking about the church as a whole but of individual people. INDIVIDUALS. Now obviously there was a big uprising starting in the early 1800's of premil dispy teaching. But once again this is something that was being taught to new believers. America was the land of the free and the home of the brave where you could come and preach WHATEVER you wanted without fear of reaprisal. For the most part. Hense the origin of many futurist cults. MORMONS...JW'S...ADVENTISTS...MILLERITES, etc. All founded after J.N. Darby came over with his doctrine. COINCIDENCE...I DON'T THINK SO. And feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but believers and adhearents to these groups BACK THEN(Early 1800's) weren't exactly achedemia material. The majority of people back then weren't anywhere near as literate or educated on the whole in the early 1800's as they are now either. So what choice did they have but to follow their teachers. How are you gonna question a man of God when you could hardly even read much less interpret scriptures. JW's for years even discouraged higher education for their followers. Matter of fact...what level of education did Americans have access to until recent decades. Nowhere near as much as we have today.

These things all account for the growth of premil dispy teaching in amazing ways over the last 200 years.

So once again...The church as a body hasn't moved from preterism to futurism. But INDIVIDUALS who are agnostic in their understanding of the scriptures are simply believing what they are told as new believers. Which today is typically a futurist view of eschatology here in the good ol USA.

Which then leads to my chart and observations of these INDIVIDUALS.

Pmike

[Guest]

Good point PMike, I coincide… Very good point; that is what I love about history. Thanks

[Guest]

Mike--

you seem to be equating "intelligence" with preterism and "ignorance" with premillenialism.

how then, do you explain seemingly intelligent (if not brilliant) theologians who are not preterists? are they simply willfully ignorant, like the pharisees (i.e. in their heart of hearts they know that preterism is correct but because of their denomination, etc they simply push premillenialism)?

there seems to be a tone in this thread that goes something like this:

"any intelligent, well-read person must be a preterist. if you are a pre-millenialist, you are either unintelligent, or not well-read, or both."

isnt that rather, for lack of a better word, pompous?

TK