Preterism

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view.[i] One definition of preterism is “a belief that interprets biblical prophecies as events which have already happened in the first century A.D. (as opposed to remaining to be fulfilled in the future).” The view roughly divides into partial preterism or full preterism. Effectively, most or all prophecies of the Bible become history instead. In eschatological terms, preterism is the opposite of futurism. Preterism means past in fulfillment, and futurism means future in fulfillment.[ii]
 
Full preterism holds that all eschatological events (what many Christian consider future “end-time events”) were fulfilled at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Preterists usually replace the idea of a future second coming and resurrection with a sort of metaphorical and/or positional change.
 
Partial preterism, on the other hand, holds that most but not all of the eschatological events have been fulfilled, and that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 fulfilled most of Jesus’s Olivet Discourse (the prophetic teachings on the Mount of Olives recorded in Matthew 24-25, as well as Mark and Luke).
 
I recently discovered there is a “Preterist Bible.” Originally called the Fulfilled Covenant Bible (FCB), it is now titled The Kingdom Bible (TKB). According to information about the Bible, it is a revision based on testaments from two public domain Bible – the World English Old Testament and the King James Clarified New Testament. It is a collaboration of the work of many Preterists, with Michael E. Day serving as editor. “The fog of futurist translation bias has been thoroughly dissipated,” they say – and replaced, of course, by preterist translation bias.

---

[i] Eschatology is any system of doctrines or branch of theology concerning last, or final, matters, such as death, resurrection, judgment, the afterlife, etc. 

[ii] The English term preterism comes from the Latin word praeter. Praeter is a prefix meaning “past.” Those who hold the belief of preterism are known as preterists.

Things Dispensationalism Does Not Teach

In a blog article titled Things Dispensationalism Does NOT Teach, Southern Baptist Pastor Dave Miller indicated a bee had gotten under his bonnet, the Babylon Bee, that is.[1] On June 24, 2016 the Bee published Dispensationalists Frantically Adjust End-Times Charts To Include Brexit Vote, a satire on dispensationalism and the "Brexit" vote. Because Dave gets "a little annoyed whenever people take cheap shots at Dispensationalism," he set out to set us straight.

Now, I agree with some of his basic premises. For example, too many people show "disrespect and condescension" for a "doctrine held by sincere Christians" who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. Further, critics often aim their cricticisms at the more fringe views rather than the essence of what Dispensationalists actually teach. Finally, some people think they have refuted Dispensationalism "simply by refuting the abuses of the doctrine." On the other hand, I felt Miller put too many eggs in the "scholarly" basket. My comments also seemed to get Dave "a little annoyed" and so I decided to bring them here to my blog rather than keep annoying him. (Then I forgot all about this and only now am getting around to posting it -- must not be that important.)

Here's a few things I think Dave got wrong.

In order to explain his view of Dispensationalism and set up what is to follow, Miller categorizes the system into three basic views: populist Dispensationalism, sensationalistic Dispensationalism, and scholarly Dispensationalism. In doing so he built a buffer against criticism of what he seems to think of as "Classic Dispensationalism". But, in doing so, he wrongly categorizes Dispensationalism. In his article What is Dispensationalism?, Michael Vlach of The Master’s Seminary divides this way: 1. Classical Dispensationalism (ca. 1850—1940s, e.g. John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer); 2. Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (ca.1950—1985, e.g. John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain) and 3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1986—present, e.g. Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy). While no categorization is not without its difficulties, Vlach's attempt is better than Miller's, setting theological and historical sights rather than serving a polemic purpose.

One problem with Miller's categorization is that populist, sensationalistic, and scholarly Dispensationalism exist among the various divisions of Dispensationalism and therefore cannot explain what he attempts to explain.[2] He seems to exclude Darby and Scofield from "Classic Dispensationalism", thereby relieving some of the problems associated with them. But there is a clear historical trajectory from them to the leading American proponent of scholarly Dispensationalism, the Dallas Theological Seminary -- J. N. Darby to J. H. Brookes; J. H. Brookes to C. I. Scofield; C. I. Scofield to Lewis Sperry Chafer; Lewis Sperry Chafer (the founder) to Dallas Theological Seminary. If we pull out these links, it is hard to understand the continuity (and discontinuity) of the system.

Pastor Miller says, "If you are going to refute Dispensationalism, you need to refute academic dispensationalism." I partially agree with this. Dispensationalism needs to be discussed and debated in the context of its clear teaching. But such a view about "academic dispensationalism" dismisses much of what is solidly and clearly in the Dispensational camp. There is no reason to think only the academics represent "real" Dispensationalism, or that adherents of "populist Dispensationalism" are not "real" Dispensationalists. In fact, one of the allures of Dispensationalism is that the Bible can be simply understood by ordinary folks using a literal hermenutic.

When one asserts that the populist doctrine does not represent the actual teaching of Dispensationalism, we must follow up with this question, "Who gets to decide that, and why?"

Important names in American Dispensational History
William E. Blackstone (1841–1935), James H. Brookes (1830-1897), Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), A. C. Dixon (1854–1925), William J. Erdman (1833–1923), Arno Gaebelein (1861-1945), A. J. Gordon (1836–1895), James M. Gray (1851–1925), H. A. Ironside (1876–1951), Dwight L. Moody (1837–1899), J. Dwight Pentecost (1915 –2014), C. C. Ryrie (1925– 2016), Cyrus I. Scofield (1843–1921), Reuben Archer Torrey (1856–1928), John Walvoord (1910–2002)

Most of the leading Dispensationalists were not Baptists; three who were include:
J. R. Graves (1820–1893), W. A. Criswell (1909–2002), and John R. Rice (1895–1980)

[1] If you don’t like religious satire you might take offense at Babylon Bee’s humor. But they do spread the caricature's around pretty fairly!
[2] For example, Tim LaHaye (who holds doctorates from Western Theological Seminary and Liberty University) is best known for his Left Behind Series (popular, sensational). But his commentary Revelation, Illustrated and Made Plain follows much of the trajectory of men like Walvoord, Pentecost and Ryrie (moderate, scholarly).

The Praise of Folly

Yesterday I noticed the recommendation of a book titled The Praise of Folly: The Enigmatic Life and Theology of C.I. Scofield by David Lutzweiler. Interested to see what it is, I did some searching online. Looks like it will be an interesting book, and I'm going to order a copy.

C. I. Scofield (1843–1921) was preacher, theologian, writer, and compiler of a the popular Scofield Reference Bible (and a soldier, lawyer, and politician before that). It was common to see his Study Bible among churches and preachers I came up amongst. It is perhaps most loved and hated for its pretributional premillennial dispensationalism. I have long since ditched Scofield's Study Bible, and I do not recommend it. (In fact, though I own several "Study Bibles" I don't regularly use any of them, or recommend them.) While searching online it became apparent that Scofield's life is the source of much controversy. Was he a saint or a scalawag, or a bit of both? Detractors point to financial and personal dealings that seem less than upright, while supporters explain that most of this was before he was converted. Some pretribulationists and anti-pretribulationalists write as if the doctrine stands or falls with the life of Scofield!

Whoever or whatever Scofield was, his signature doctrine must stand the test of the Scriptures and rise or fall with them.

Further reading, which I found while "Googling" the internet
* Book Briefs: The Praise of Folly: The Enigmatic Life and Theology of C.I. Scofield by David Lutzweiler from FundamentallyReformed.com
* C. I. Scofield - The Rest of the Story by Thomas Williamson, From the Northern Landmark Missionary Baptist Newsletter, March, 2012
* Cyrus Ingerson Scofield on Find-a-Grave.com
* From Confederate Deserter to Decorated Veteran Bible Scholar, a Master's thesis by D. Jean Rushing
* Lutzweiler's "Folly" (Part 1) by  Robert L. Sumner, Editor of The Biblical Evangelist
* Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty by Dave MacPherson
* Scofield, Cyrus Ingerson from The Handbook of Texas Online
* Wikipedia article

666, the Mark of the Beast

* Whitley County Cross Country Runner Refuses To Run After Being Assigned "666" Number -- "[Cross country runner Codie] Thacker couldn't bring herself to run while wearing '666' because of her faith. So, she and her coach tried to get a different number. They asked three different officials. They were told no three different times."

From LEX18.com in Lexington, Kentucky comes news of a high school cross country runner who forfeited her regional championship spot in a race after rather than wear bib number 666.*

Codie Thacker, a Whitley County High School junior, voluntarily forfeited her spot because of her religious beliefs concerning the number 666. According to Thacker and her coach, they asked officials to switch her number, but they refused. A person speaking for the Kentucky High School Athletic Association claimed that they did not know the request was for religious reasons. They claim that if they had known they would have granted the request.

In contrast Thacker "insists she was explicit about her motivation." "I told them to mark out my name because it makes me sick just thinking that my name is associated with that number," Thacker said. Her religious beliefs were obvious to those who knew her. On drawing '666' Thacker's coach expressed her thoughts. "I saw it and I was like, 'whoa,' I don't think she will wear that number."

I can't read minds, but reading between the lines I'd guess the Athletic Association initially thought this was no big deal -- maybe a little whacked out religious zeal -- and is now trying to cover its tracks. How many people are that out of touch with the negative religious connotations of the number '666'? Most folks could have guessed the reason even if they weren't told. So, shall we say, I'm suspicious of their explanation.

My understanding of the number '666' in Revelation would not cause me to react the way Codie did. I do not view it as an evil number outside of its context. As a bib number for a cross country runner it would be no different from 100 or 600 or 665, in my opinion. Some people will dub Codie Thacker a misguided youth, a religious zealot, and such like. But I congratulate this young lady for standing up for what she believes.** She is not responsible for what others believe. She must be true to herself. It is to the shame of the Kentucky High School Athletic Association that they viewed this young athlete's convictions so lightly and did not deal with an issue that could have been so easily fixed! In a country founded on religious freedom, she should not have to choose between running and her deeply held religious beliefs.

* A bib number is a random number designed to pin on a runner's t-shirt or racing vest. It is used by race directors to identify and tell the runners apart.
** I nevertheless hope she will come to a better understanding of the meaning of '666'.

4 Approaches to God's Revelation to John

...and other eschatology.

If you're like me, you may tend to tend to view eschatology -- the final or end-time events of the history of the world -- as falling into the categories of amillennialism, postmillennialism and premillennialism. And then there is and pessimillennialism and panmillennialism. :-)

Another way of approaching eschatology and the book of Revelation are the interpretations of historicism, preterism, futurism, and idealism. The 3 millennial views may be sorted out variously among these and are not coterminous with any of them.

The historicist approach interprets the Book of Revelation as a record that spans history from the time of the apostles to the end of the world, or from Christ's first advent to His second coming. Some fulfillment is past, some is in progress and some is yet to come. The events have been unfolding for about two thousand years and will continue to do so until the end of time. Well known historicists include Martin Luther, Isaac Newton, Matthew Henry, and Albert Barnes. This approach seems to be a minority view today, but one can see a combination of historicism and futurism in the Bible commentary of C. I. Scofield -- especially his conflation of the seven churches of Asia representing the seven periods of entirety of church history. 

The preterist approach interprets the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as having occurred in the past -- either all (preterism) or most (partial preterism) of them. The events happened not long after John’s own time and are often associated with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Examples of preterist views can be found in books such as Is Jesus Coming Soon by Gary DeMar and The Days of Vengeance: an Exposition of the Book of Revelation by David Chilton.

The futurist approach interprets the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as await future fulfillment -- either all or almost all of them. Almost everything after the first verse of the fourth chapter is expected to occur in a few years before the return of Christ.  The futurist approach has existed since the earliest centuries of the church, and finds wide contemporary representation among premillennial proponents such as Arno Gaebelein, Norman Geisler, H. A. Ironside, John MacArthur, Henry M. Morris, Charles Ryrie, and John Walvoord.

The idealist approach is a spiritual or symbolic approach to interpreting the book of Revelation. It does not look for single or individual historical or future fulfillment of the visions. Rather it takes Revelation to as a drama of recurring spiritual conflicts played out in human history until the return of Christ, in which Christ and His saints emerge victorious. Its symbols express abiding principles regarding the conflict between good and evil. More Than Conquerors: an Interpretation of the Book of Revelation by William Hendriksen (Baker Books, 1998) provides a scholarly representation of the idealist approach.

These approaches tend to be mutually exclusive, but some students of Revelation blend them into what might be called an eclectic approach. Proponent of eclecticism include George Eldon Ladd (A Commentary on the Revelation of John, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972)), Gregory Beale (The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) and Grant Osborne ( Revelation: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Baker Academic, 2002). Despite their eclecticism, one approach is usually emphasized heavily above the others.

Wrong again

I'm still here. Either I missed the rapture or Harold Camping got it wrong.

Harold Camping is a religious quack who "discovers" deep mysteries, while missing simple statements of our Lord such as "no man knoweth (or will know) the day or the hour." Some people never learn.

Much of the news media revealed they are journalistic quacks. How many times did you hear yesterday was "the end of the world". A simple click of the mouse would have revealed that wasn't exactly what Camping said. But what did they care; they just found something they could manipulate.

Christians, don't be discouraged. Let us keep looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. False prophets will get it wrong. Scoffers will increase. But He that shall come WILL come, and will not tarry.

Strong's opinion

"The Revelation 20:1-10 passage constitutes a part of one of the most figurative books of Scripture. It ought to be interpreted in a manner that does not contradict the plainer statements of Scripture." -- Paraphrase of A. H. Strong from his Systematic Theology

The bride, the Lamb's wife

In the age to come, the bride is with those who inhabit the New Jerusalem, according to John's writing in Revelation 21:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away...I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;...And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any ...but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Who are these people? Is it not all who are written in the Lamb's book of life?

4 views of the millennium

I don't blog much on eschatology (last things) -- in fact I don't think I have ever. But here is a blog post with a pretty nice chart on 4 views of the millennium.

What if you knew?

One night after a meeting, some preachers were discussing when the Lord is coming, what are the signs, etc. Eld. Conrad Murrell asked the group “Suppose I could tell you exactly when the Lord is coming. What would you do?” They said one thing and another, nothing too exact. Eld. Murrell further stated, “Say we know he’s coming at two o’clock in the morning?” One said, “I don’t know what I’d do.” Another replied, “I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing now.” Someone asked Murrell what he’d be doing. He looked at his watch and said, “It’s getting kind of late. I think I’d go to bed.” Some were left aghast, but the point was if there is something you’d be doing if you knew when the Lord was coming back, you ought to be doing it anyway (cause we know He IS coming back). Or as he said, “I don’t know of a thing I’d do different than what I’m doing now. And if you do, you ought to be doing it.”

I heard the above on a cassette tape recorded sermon of Conrad Murrell entitled, I believe, "Eschatology, #1". It is written from memory, so it is not word for word as on the tape.