My Preterist Journey (so far + video)

[psimmond]

Rick, it seems our journeys are in some ways quite similar. I used to think the preterist position was ridiculous because I was brought up in a very conservative (what used to be called fundamentalist) way. I had never learned how to read apocalyptic literature so I just assumed most of it was meant to be taken literally.

The New Perspective on Paul was a game changer for me. I discovered serious scholarship and began to listen to less MacArthur, Stanley, and Smith and started reading McKnight, Dunn, Wright, and Garlington.

Later, through Paidion, I discovered Derek Flood. Around this time I also discovered Peter Enns. These guys helped me shed even more baggage.

Then I discovered Tilling, Hurtado, Bauckham, Tuggy, and more recently Perriman and Garrow.

I'm now close to the full preterist position. My view of scripture has changed significantly over the past few years along with my hermeneutics. (I now have very little interest in systematic theology and apologetics.)

I think of the Grateful Dead line "What a long, strange trip it's been."

My journey has been exciting, liberating, and scary, and it has led me to a place where I now feel that evangelicalism no longer fits me. It's a strange and lonely place to be because expressing my beliefs will cause friends to pray for my salvation

I've become much more agnostic in some respects but at the same time I've become more sure and focused when it comes to my core belief that we are given life to love God by loving others.

[dwilkins]

If you're a Perriman fan, you must read his take on Romans. It's a real game changer.

http://www.amazon.com/Future-People-God ... man+romans

[psimmond]

Hi dwilkins,
I have started reading Perriman's book on Romans. He makes things make sense in a way they never did before, but it's a whole new way of reading scripture and it takes some getting used to. I've also been spending time reading his blog posts and interacting with him there.

I know Perrriman is not really a fan of the term "preterism" so maybe I should avoid that term as well since I really don't have a clear idea about all of its implications. But Perriman's idea that the biblical narratives really don't extend beyond Christendom, so the church is now in a position where we must create a meaningful narrative moving forward is certainly challenging.

I think Perriman is ahead of his time, but I suspect his views will one day become quite popular as they are simply the outworking of Third Quest/NPP scholarship.

I think these are exciting times for the church, but change is uncomfortable and there will be heated arguments and charges of heresy as the old guard cling to this religion we've created.

[RickC]

Greetings psimmond, Doug, anyone else,

Thanks for your reply, psimmond!

Yes. It looks like we've come from similar backgrounds & appear to be heading in a same general direction. And yes, again @ long strange trip it's been,

One thing helps, as far as that feeling of alienation from Christian/evangelical friends & family goes. Namely, you are not alone! In fact, it was on this forum some time ago that a former amillennialist (such as was I) 'came out' as a preterist. I enjoy a good debate but . . . I really couldn't come up with anything to contest the matter with him. The forum had had some 'drive-by preterists' who were --- [how can I put this?] --- a bit 'rabid' about it. Nothing wrong with enthusiasm. But stuff like "Why don't you believe God's Word?" isn't all that helpful.

I've joined several Facebook Preterist Groups over the last year just to try to gather more info. These have been somewhat helpful but I haven't gleaned anything especially new. Various Preterist Views are posted in some of the groups in an overview form (similar to a Statement of Faith type thing. Doug's take on things was posted too).

I don't know if this will be encouraging to you, psimmond, but there are many variations in preterist views. (Which, you may already know). But why would I wonder if this might be encouraging to you? I guess because: No one appears to have unravelled all of the eschatological mysteries. This gives hope for me. More to discover!

Re: Perriman. I've been reading his blogs for years (his old blog is still up that has a lot of great info: "Open Source Theology"). I've read his Romans & Son Of Man books & peruse his current blog often.

Not long ago I heard a talk by Todd Dennis (the guy who runs the famous "Preterist Archive") on the history of preterism. I can't recall offhand but there were some theologians from a hundred or so years ago who laid out theology similar to Perriman's. That is, with regard to the fulfillment(s) occurring with Constantine. Some Early Fathers followed this line of thought to a certain degree too.

Re: NPP. This has been a major game changer for me. It's a little weird that people like N.T. Wright and Perriman affirm NPP, yet remain partial preterists. I say it's weird because their general push, the themes they emphasize, The Kingdom, etc., are perfectly compatible and consistent with full preterism. (I sometimes wonder if any of these thinkers may secretly be entertaining full preterism; R.C. Sproul for example. I also wonder if they don't 'go there' in order to keep their jobs. Or it could simply be a matter of realizing where they can make a difference and focussing on that).

Winding this down.

Just where things will go from here (as far as the church/Christianity) goes, who knows? >>> GOD!

It seems to me inevitable that [full] preterism will gain more & more prominence. To what extent & how soon: unknown. It's something that will have to be addressed by the larger church as the belief is gaining popularity. (I certainly NEVER thought I'd become a full preterist)!

Lastly, I can relate to having a certain propensity toward agnosticism. It's how I'm designed, perhaps (INTP personality type).

But when it comes to where the rubber meets the road; God changed my life (recovered alcoholic). 'Comes a time when we 'thinking types' need to remind ourselves to keep it simple (as possible), yet without sacrificing loving God with our minds.

I work 3rd shift & have been up since yesterday P.M. & think I might be rambling!

Thanks psimmond, et al!
God Bless!

[RickC]

You know it's interesting, when I was a JW this was the most natural teaching in the world. We (they) taught (teach) that those raised to heavenly life are raised with spirit bodies. There is a whole line of reasoning on it. I have never really divorced myself from that thinking, because I could never see a reason to. Most evangelicals I talk to are shocked and think it's heretical to suggest such a thing, and I can't see why.

Hello Brenden (late reply, hope you see this),

I mentioned earlier, it seems to me that even though 'orthodox' Christians believe in a literal, physical-body resurrection; in my experience relatively few seem to have thought it through (or they just seem to accept it without critique).

I'd say the vast majority of evangelicals I've interacted with believe "your spirit goes to heaven when you die" . . . "and will be reunited with your new body later".

If one goes to heaven & gets a new body later, my questions is: What would be the big deal? What's the diff? Being in God's Heaven: Can that be topped?

What you've encountered is an objection to the words "spirit body". Which, as Doug, and Engberg-Pedersen (in his "The Material Spirit" book) have clarified: the spirit (pneuma) is material. Whereas most evangelicals/orthodox see this as contradictory (thinking a spirit cannot be material, etc.).

(Doug covered this earlier in the thread. I just thought you deserved a reply)!

[psimmond]

RickC,
I do think identifying Babylon as Jerusalem in order to identify 70AD as the fulfillment of all prophesy feels quite forced, and this seems to be an achilles heel for full preterism. The narrative-historical hermeneutic makes a lot of sense although it is at times quite subjective. Of course, Perriman applies this hermeneutic more consistently than men like Wright, but as you suggested, men like Wright likely feel they have to be more careful and guarded. And I sometimes think Perriman's post-Christendom views haven't been analyzed enough. For example the relationship between today's church and Christ's reign seems ambiguous at times--exactly how is Christ currently placing all things under his feet? And his view of the new heaven and new earth is only marginally less confusing than Wright's view, IMO. (In all fairness, I'm more familiar with Wright's work than I am with Perriman's so that could account for some of my confusion when it comes to Perriman.)

[RickC]

Psimmond,

As to if "Babylon" in Rev was Rome? or Jerusalem? --- and what bearing either option would have on preterism --- I'm not exactly sure what you mean here(?). To be sure, the early (pre-70) date for authorship lends support for preterism. I accept the early date. Ken Gentry did a lot of good work on this.

Perriman essentially says, "If Rome was Babylon, and since Christianity didn't 'conquer' Rome till it became officially-institutionally Christian, then Revelation wasn't 'fulfilled' till circa Constantine." (I don't know if you're also thinking something like this, but we know Perriman does).

While I find his blog and books interesting, I don't accept his ideas of an eschatological 'delayed judgment' on Rome (Gk., oikoumene, "the whole world" or "the inhabited land"). I don't have any particular reasons not to accept his conclusions. It's just that I don't think he provides clear scriptural evidence.

I had been reading his OST blog for a few years before someone referred me to his current blog, not paying attention who wrote on OST (it was primarily Andrew, but I think there were others). After reading a few of his newer blogs, I wrote back to the guy who referred me and said, "He sounds like some type of historicist" (but not the dispensationalist type wherein each of the 7 churches represents a 'church age').

In any event, Perriman is doing a great job in trying to get us to articulate anew what being a Christian today means (in light of the biblical narrative --- and what it means to and for us now).

On Wright and Perriman w/r/t what Christ's reign means for us today. But first --- the preterist interpretation of Christ's reign/putting his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15) is not dissimilar to an amillenial interpretation. Though Amills see a future-final judgment/coming they see Christ as presently reigning. Preterists differ in that there will be no future judgment/coming. Many (such as myself and Doug) do believe we as individuals will be judged upon death.

Otherwise, with what they 'come out' with about the future, both Perriman and Wright are 'orthodox' (w/r/t New Heavens, New Earth). To my knowledge, neither view the NH/NE as anything other than Utopia (standard orthodoxy).

Btw, not sure if you saw it but I just found an exchange between Andrew and Don Preston (I've read about half of it, long blog post, FYI):

20 reasons for thinking that “Babylon the great” is Rome not Jerusalem

I've seen it as: Jerusalem.

Although Revelation is definitely pertinent in studying preterism/eschatology, I may differ from many in that I don't put a lot of stock into it in terms of linking it to other scriptures. By this I mean that, while definite 'links' are there, and sometimes quite specifically; I'm still at a place of trying to understand Revelation on its own --- before making definite systematic theology type links to the rest of scripture. As an example, I have some ideas about the millennium, but haven't come to any conclusions. Many, maybe most, preterists identify it as the 40 years between 30 and 70AD. (I know Doug is an exception to this).

[psimmond]

Thanks, RickC. I did read the exchange between Andrew and Don and I thought Andrew's arguments were better although I haven't studied this in depth. I was primarily referring to what seems to be much greater support among Bible scholars for the late date for Revelation. But it is interesting that some see Revelation as a multi-stage work that began during the reign of Nero and ended during the reign of Domitian or Trajan.

I see Perriman's view regarding the establishment of Christendom as demonstration of Yahweh's rule over the nations to be reasonable but not too obvious.

I saw your mention of "bodies composed of spirit" in the op and I have to say this sounds logically impossible. I also think Wright makes a pretty good case for seeing "resurrection" as physical. I wonder if "body" was ever used to describe spirits (1 Cor. 15:44). What are your reasons for thinking resurrected people may not have physical bodies?

[RickC]

Psimmond (briefly for now),

I must admit --- I'm no expert on Revelation. It seems I take in a lot of views but haven't come to anything concrete.

Re: Perriman & Christendom. Leaving scripture aside, we know something happened with Constantine, ff. Something very significant in history. I suppose I should add that though I've read two of Andrew's books, I don't have anything lodged in my memory that stood out. It could be that I was already familiar with his ideas. But usually, I remember something really significant when I'm 'blown away' by a great book. Speaking of great books . . . .

I saw your mention of "bodies composed of spirit" in the op and I have to say this sounds logically impossible. I also think Wright makes a pretty good case for seeing "resurrection" as physical. I wonder if "body" was ever used to describe spirits (1 Cor. 15:44). What are your reasons for thinking resurrected people may not have physical bodies?

If you scroll back to page one, Doug posted on this.

On page two I replied, citing a book I'm almost finished with:
"Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit"
by Troels Engberg-Pedersen

I gave a link that summarizes chapters.

Abbreviated answer to your Q for now (1 Cor 15:44): Paul held to a Stoic cosmology, generally speaking. That is, with the exceptions of his Jewish/Christian distinctives. When Stoic cosmology branches down to its anthropology, what you have is a pneuma (spirit) that has a material [ontological] reality. We're not too accustomed to this idea as we're more influenced by dualistic Platonic thought. Put another way, we tend to view 'spirit' as non-material (ontologically real, but not physical in any sense).

Doug is a lot better at explaining this than I am! And so is Troels Engberg-Pedersen!

Wright's take on 1 Cor 15:44 is that our present bodies will somehow be physically reconstituted and animated by the Spirit of God (the spiritual body). Some time ago Wright wrote about this saying that the pronoun 'spiritual' (in spiritual body), in terms of the Greek, has the Spirit of God acting upon the newly physically resurrected bodies; the Spirit animates/gives life to them.

Doug, Engberg-Pedersen and myself see 'the spiritual body' as a body composed of material-spirit. Again, this is a tough idea to come to grips with, since we've been taught to think of 'spirit' as immaterial.

Back to bed, work in 5 hours, Take Care,

[psimmond]

It's all quite confusing, and how you define inspiration plays a huge part in interpretation. For example, how much was Paul influenced by Stoicism and how certain are we that Paul's views of the afterlife are accurate? Likewise, since we really don't know who the author of Revelation was (John the Seer), how confident can we be that his vision/visions were all from God? (Revelation was excluded from various lists of NT scripture down through the centuries and even after the Council of Trent made the current list an Article of Faith, Luther and Zwingli expressed disagreement with its inclusion.)

I have the most faith in Mark's gospel since it is the earliest of the four and considered to be Peter's recollections. I also appreciate the fact that it is the least embellished of the four. So my beliefs are largely shaped by this book, which means anything beyond the scope of this book, I hold quite loosely.