Consistent Amillennialism ...

[amishrockstar]

Is it inconsistent to be an Amillennialist AND an Orthodox Preterist? It seems that most Preterists are Postmillennial, while most Amils would see much of Revelation (and 2 Thes.2, etc.) as still future. Any thoughts?

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Is it inconsistent to be an Amillennialist AND an Orthodox Preterist? It seems that most Preterists are Postmillennial, while most Amils would see much of Revelation (and 2 Thes.2, etc.) as still future. Any thoughts?

I would be considered partial preterist and amill although I tend to look at Revelation from an Idealist view. Partial preterism will fit in almost any eschatalogical position in my opinion.

 

[AV1611]

Partial preterism will fit in almost any eschatalogical position in my opinion.

As John Gill demonstrates in his commentary upon the Olivet discourse.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I have been listening as of late to this series of messages on Revelation. His name is Arturo Azurdia III. He has 81 lectures on Revelation. Pretty good stuff.
Spirit Empowered Preaching

 

[amishrockstar]

Thanks for your reply,
I was wondering because I was listening to a tape with Ken Gentry who kept equating Postmillennialism with O.Preterism, while he lumped Amils and Premils together as believing 2 Thes. 2 and other passages as being still future (maybe he just doesn't know of any Amils who think that 2 Thes. 2 has taken place --Jay Adams and Gene Cook Jr. are the only ones that I know of).

 

[amishrockstar]

Was John Gill an Amil ?

 

[Blueridge Believer]

+ JONATHAN EDWARDS on ANTICHRIST

"The other remarkable instance is, the fulfillment of scripture prophecy, concerning Antichrist. The way that this Antichrist should arise, is foretold, viz. by the falling away of the Christian church into a corrupt state: 2 Thessalonians 2:3. "For that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." - And it is prophesied, that this man of sin should set himself up in the temple or visible church of God, pretending to be vested with divine power, as head of the church, (verse 4.) And all this is exactly come to pass in the church of Rome."

- From EDWARDS' book _The History of Redemption (Salvation): God's Work, Creation To Judgment Day, With Edward's Postmillennial Eschatology of Victory (no cost in MP3 format beginning at SermonAudio.com - The History of Redemption #1 or in printed format at Author E (Classic Reformation Books by Calvin, Knox, Luther, Rutherford, Gillespie, other Westminster Divines, Steele, Price, etc.) or see resource #2 below).

 

[AV1611]

Was John Gill an Amil ?

He was premill but you can find all of the positions in his view.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Was John Gill an Amil ?

More importantly, was he a partial preterist? There are many folks that take a preterist view of (portions of) the Olivet Discourse who nevertheless would not be classified as preterist (e.g., Kim Riddlebarger). Once they turn to Revelation they no longer seem to exhibit any interest in a preterist interpretation.

 

[JohnV]

We've been punting this word "preterist" around for a while. I'm not sure I understand what is being conveyed by that word. When we use the word "preterist" are we talking about someone who believes that the prophecy has been fulfilled and that there is no other fulfillment of it to be expected? That the particular prophecy in question has been completed? Or are we also including those who believe the prophecy has been fulfilled, but that there is another side of it that may also be expected to be fulfilled yet? Does the word "preterist" put the fulfillment of the prophecy in question definitively in the past tense only?

 

[Dr Mike Kear]

Is it inconsistent to be an Amillennialist AND an Orthodox Preterist? It seems that most Preterists are Postmillennial, while most Amils would see much of Revelation (and 2 Thes.2, etc.) as still future. Any thoughts?

Ray Summers, a Baptist theologian, wrote a commentary on Revelation that was both orthodox preterist and amillennialist called Worthy is the Lamb.

 

[Dr Mike Kear]

We've been punting this word "preterist" around for a while. I'm not sure I understand what is being conveyed by that word. When we use the word "preterist" are we talking about someone who believes that the prophecy has been fulfilled and that there is no other fulfillment of it to be expected? That the particular prophecy in question has been completed? Or are we also including those who believe the prophecy has been fulfilled, but that there is another side of it that may also be expected to be fulfilled yet? Does the word "preterist" put the fulfillment of the prophecy in question definitively in the past tense only?

The difference between partial (or Orthodox) preterism and full (or heretical) preterism is that in orthodox preterism the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, judgment, and glorification are all still future, while full preterists believe that all prophecy has already been fulfilled. Orthodox preterists see a fulfillment of certain NT prophecies in the coming of Christ in judgment to Jerusalem in 70 a.d., particularly in relation to the ending of the Old Covenant, but still await a glorious finality wherein Christ is Victor over all in time and space. Heretical preterism sees a physical world wherein sin and death exist forever and ever, and the victory of Christ is in the spiritual realm only.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Is it inconsistent to be an Amillennialist AND an Orthodox Preterist? It seems that most Preterists are Postmillennial, while most Amils would see much of Revelation (and 2 Thes.2, etc.) as still future. Any thoughts?

Ray Summers, a Baptist theologian, wrote a commentary on Revelation that was both orthodox preterist and amillennialist called Worthy is the Lamb.

Thanks for the tip on that book brother. I just ordered it.

 

[JohnV]

The difference between partial (or Orthodox) preterism and full (or heretical) preterism is that in orthodox preterism the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, judgment, and glorification are all still future, while full preterists believe that all prophecy has already been fulfilled. Orthodox preterists see a fulfillment of certain NT prophecies in the coming of Christ in judgment to Jerusalem in 70 a.d., particularly in relation to the ending of the Old Covenant, but still await a glorious finality wherein Christ is Victor over all in time and space. Heretical preterism sees a physical world wherein sin and death exist forever and ever, and the victory of Christ is in the spiritual realm only.

So the idea of a specific prophecy having been fulfilled and also waiting for fulfillment fits in with it?

 

[Dr Mike Kear]

So the idea of a specific prophecy having been fulfilled and also waiting for fulfillment fits in with it?

Not specifically, but in a general sense, yes. For instance, when Jesus says, "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Matt 10:23 ESV), the fulfillment of that is literally in AD70. However, we clearly know from other scriptures that Jesus is also coming again in glory on the last day. Again, in Mark 9:1 (RSV), Jesus says, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." We can easily see this in the already/not yet paradigm. The Kingdom has come with power and the Kingdom is coming with power.

Again, Paul instructs the believers in Corinth, "This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short... For the present form of this world is passing away." (1 Cor 7:29-31 ESV). Paul knew that the judgment of God was about to bring an end to the present form of the world. And yet in the same letter, he speaks clearly concerning the glorious return of Christ at the last day. "Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed." (1 Cor 15:51 ff).

The outcome of this is that we live in an inaugurated eschatology and we await a final eschatology. Penultimate and ultimate. The King has come and the King is coming. If any man be in Christ there is a new creation and according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Consider also the passages in Hebrews (especially relevant to the Jewish "end of the world") where the writer speaks both of the good things that have come and the good things that are coming.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Does the word "preterist" put the fulfillment of the prophecy in question definitively in the past tense only?

Labels rarely provide a satisfactory explanation of the underlying ideas (cf. amillennialist).

Biblical prophecies related to historical events can have either a past, present, or future fulfillment from the perspective of the reader. There are many individual prophetic statements in the NT. A preterist views many (most?) of those prophecies as being in the past from our perspective. (A “consistent preterist”, aka heretical preterist, believes they have all been fulfilled.)

Whether an individual prophecy has double/multiple fulfillment is questionable. In my experience it is not very common for preterists to hold this view. (If anyone knows any preterists into double fulfillment, let me know.)

It’s interesting that most folks (historicists/futurists) who hold to some sort of double fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse rarely allow for the same interpretation of 2 Thess. 2 or the majority of Revelation.

Therefore, I think to try to apply the label “preterist” to any individual prophecy is very confusing.

 

[KMK]

Double Fulfillment

This awesome quote is from this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/double-fulfillment-24440/

Generally, I think the term "double fulfilment" is a bad choice. Here's why: it is open to all kinds of abuse, some types of which have been mentioned.

Instead, I think that with regard to Christ, we should see the OT chock full of typological references that have a "perfect" fulfilment in Christ. It isn't that Solomon doesn't fulfill David's son, its just that he can only BE an imperfect fulfillment. Jesus, after all, never has to address that part "if he commit iniquity..." A perfect Son doesn't sin at all. So, Solomon, the sinner, cannot exhaust the prophecy, or be an ideal son. There Solomon himself must not only fulfill the prophecy on one level, but IS himself a kind of prophetic promise that someone Better is coming.

So, if Solomon IS a kind of prophesy of Jesus, then everything that pertains to Solomon--including the prophecy regarding Solomon--must in some way point through Solomon to Jesus.


Then, there are prophecies that seem to build, or have "intermediate" fulfilment. Judgments of all kinds serve as these, as well as Blessings. There is a sense in which everything prophetic is eschatological. Everything points to an ideal end-state or context, in which all matters of consequence are settled. Every earthly judgment in proleptic, in that it points to a final crisis. When the Lord says, "Once more, and I will shake..." (Hag. 2:6-7; Heb. 12:27), speaking of the setting up of the everlasting kingdom, we recognize that this is an "already-not yet" kind of prophecy. It has a definitive fulfilment (ONCE more) in the ministry of Jesus--AND, it has a consummative fulfilment, in the arrival of the age to come.

Instead of "double-fulfilment: (or triple, etc.), we might do better thinking of such fulfilments as successive wavelets hitting the beach, or as ripples in the pond, or maybe as "nested". Our perspective on the events shifts, or rather, the events themselves may be small, or great, or they may be monumental. And if we were to be lifted up to God's perspective (as the prophets were) we would understand al little better what they were trying to convey (for surely, God's perspective overwhelms the man). The "true" fulfilment is that which completes.

Here might be a good place to revisit the "prophetic perspective." Some think of the prophet as a man who stands a bit higher than us, and has a telescope, but fundamentally stands on the same plane as us. Often this is presented as the "two mountain ranges" analogy. The prophet can't tell that the far range is actually farther away, and much higher.

I think that's totally erroneous.

The prophet is not "on our plane, only enhanced to see beyond us." He is "one of us," yes, but he has been removed from us and taken to Heaven ("...in a vision, in a dream," or "whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body..."). Remember Micaiah? "And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left" (1 Ki. 22:19). How about Elijah, who fled to Horeb, only to find that heaven settles on the mountainside, and he is called to a meeting?

And the prophet sees things as God sees them and he is sent back to tell us (!) what he's seen. He speaks the Words he has been given by God, and he searches them himself, to try and fathom their full meaning (1 Pet. 1:11f). And we wonder why "And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days. Then I rose and went about the king's business, but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it" (Dan. 8:27)? Or Isaiah's "undone" condition? The miracle was surviving the vision!
__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan

And speaking of labels, I agree with Paul Manata that we weaken the orthodox position by refering to hyper-preterists as 'full preterists'. They are 'hyper' because they go beyond orthodoxy.

 

[JohnV]

I agree with Paul Manata that we weaken the orthodox position by refering to hyper-preterists as 'full preterists'. They are 'hyper' because they go beyond orthodoxy.

This is good point. I think my question goes along the same lines. I get the idea from some that not agreeing with their concept of preterism, of fulfillment, puts you outside the discussion. For example, I'm Amil and I've got no problem with people believing that Matt 24 and/or 25 were fulfilled by or around the year 70AD. Whether or not that is the case, there still remains another fulfillment of that passage. 2 Thess. 2 as well. I can see no way that one can deny it, though I might well understand that some don't believe that.

I can agree that Amillennialism sees partial fulfillment. Indeed, how can any eschatological/millennial view deny it? Is there such a thing as a millennial view that is not partial preterist?

Do you see what I'm getting at with my questions? The question itself (from the OP) begs the question, so to speak.

 

[KMK]

I can agree that Amillennialism sees partial fulfillment. Indeed, how can any eschatological/millennial view deny it? Is there such a thing as a millennial view that is not partial preterist?

Dispensationalism?

 

[JohnV]

Sorry, Ken. I should have said a millennial view that is "at least" partial preterist.

 

[DMcFadden]

I know dispensationalists who would allow for a partial fulfillment/typological fulfillment (whatever) with a futuristic fulfillment in the eschaton.

 

[AV1611]

More importantly, was he a partial preterist?

I will let you make up your own mind:

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible