Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Preterism?


Here's another mp3 lecture attempting to pull preterism apart.

Kim Riddlebarger: A Problem for Preterists

Kim's blog can be found here.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

6 comments:

Ken said...

Thanks for making us think more about this stuff.

He made a stronger case against Preterism than Irons did; and definitely has caused me to go back and study it more in depth.

However, he did not deal with "one is" in Rev. 17:9-10 - to me. "one is" alive at the time of writing. And it seems logical to start with Julius Caesar rather than Augustus.

But the ones who come after Nero are the big problem with fitting in with the the seventh and eighth king. Problem for the Preterists is dealing with fitting the kings who come after Nero into the scenario in Rev. 17:9-11.

He didn't deal with "soon" and "quickly" at all. (Rev. 1:1-3) at least not in this lecture.

He didn't deal with the harlot woman adequately in my mind - image of an adulterous woman who has committed adultery against her husband - ie, Israel has gone after the Baals and become like Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon; and "rides the beast" - controls the beast - "we have no king but Caesar" and "crucify Him" - Gentry and DeMar make a good case for Babylon being Israel - riding - Rev. 17:3 (controlling Rome in getting Rome to persecute Jesus earlier, and the apostles, at time of writing, yet later turning against the woman (Rev. 17:16) by attacking and destroying Jerusalem and the temple.

His strongest point is the historical conditions of persecution under Domitian in 96 AD, Pliny's letter, and the other conditions in the churches of Rev. 2-3.

He made an excellent point about the outer court of the temple vs. the inner sanctuary in Rev. 11; yet Titus in 70 Ad went straight in and destroyed the inner sanctuary.

I did not understand how he admitted that 666 is probably Nero's name, or refers to Nero, yet is not and is a symbol of all human rulers who attempt to rule and "be God" - never attaining to the perfection of 777.

So, the uncertainty continues; and I am more agreeable to Riddlebarger's view; but we should not be dogmatic about a lot of things about eschatology.

Jay Adams is Amillennial yet agrees with the partial preterism of Gentry and DeMar and Sproul.

12:55 PM, September 28, 2011
Brigitte said...

Two weekends ago, my husband and I were on holiday in a little town in the USA and I ended up going to church at a "community church" (my husband stayed in the car and read some Luther for an hour. He never does such a thing and he was in a marvelous mood after that.) (I digress.)

The community church had a Methodist hymnal which opened to some legalistic hymn about "Giving your best for Jesus." In the front of the hymnal was a two page lecture about worshiping in the right, spirit-filled way... (pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, is what came to my mind.)

The sermon, however, was very introspective about the role of the church. The pastor said that their church must resist sitting around in Bible studies studying at nauseam exactly what will happen in the end times. We love to do this, he said. But, instead, the church should be about going out and talking about Christ.

I thought this was a marvelous point: endless eschatological debate vs. talking about Jesus.

Though, I have to critique that he talked more about talking about Jesus than he actually talked about Jesus. We all need to watch for this. It is so easy to do.

For one thing, there were no scripture readings in this service.

2:51 PM, September 28, 2011
Anonymous said...

To the question, Ken, what is your position?

Also, to those who held a position yesterday, of the several, die today, what is the point of it anyway?

Can there be a salient message of the Gospel of the Kingdom that when accomplished, the end shall come?

3:01 PM, September 28, 2011
Ken said...

To the question, Ken, what is your position?

A partial Preterist A-millennial
or
Historic Premillennial (Post-Tribulational)

I cannot see Theonomy or reconstructionism, which seems to be what drives post-Millennialism the most. But they also have a lot of good points. DeMar and Gentry persuaded me on Partial Preterism on a lot of it (but not all), but not much on Post-Mill or Theonomy.



Also, to those who held a position yesterday, of the several, die today, what is the point of it anyway?

I don't understand your question totally; but it seems you are saying that it doesn't matter for those who have died. Well, that is true. They know the truth of the matter now. Your point seems to be that we should not waste time struggling with the different views, just preach the gospel and live holy.

There is a lot of truth to that, one can only go so far in figuring these things out.

We who live continue to wrestle with the text.

I agree that the eschatological view of the Millennium and Tribulation and timing before Christ comes again is the least important area of systematic theology.

All Christians believe that Christ is coming back; but they disagree on when and the circumstances.

Can there be a salient message of the Gospel of the Kingdom that when accomplished, the end shall come?

Yes, that seems to be why time is still continuing - 2 Peter 3:8-18 - God is patient with the church to go out and evangelize and reach the nations - because the elect are still out there and have not heard yet.

The nations must the discipled first, then the end will come. Matthew 28:18-20 - The end of the age is the second coming.

Rev. 5:9; Romans 10:13-15; Rom 15:20-21; Acts 1:7-8; Romans 11:25-26; 2 Tim. 2:10.

If Matthew 23:36 ff and 24:1-3 to 24:14-15 to 24:34 is about 70 AD, it seems some of it is also about the end of time when Christ returns, especially 24:29-31 - the hardest part of Partial Preterism is seeing verses 29-31 as AD 70 - seems like the second coming to me. the disciples in their question mix AD 70 in with the second coming, so Jesus answers them by a discourse which seems to have both mixed in. (Matthew 24:3 - disciples mix 3 things together. If AD 70 is some kind of pre-view of the end, then Matthew 24:14 would also point to the gospel going out to all the nations first, and then the end shall come.

9:23 AM, September 29, 2011
Ken said...

Can there be a salient message of the Gospel of the Kingdom that when accomplished, the end shall come?


I wrote an article a few months ago that touches on that issue.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/03/gods-sovereignty-in-election-motivates.html

9:29 AM, September 29, 2011
Anonymous said...

Ken,

thank you!

And thank you James for allowing this sort of discourse among brothers! :)

7:48 PM, September 29, 2011

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)