# The Preterist Hermeneutic



## KMK

Can one become convinced of the preterist hermeneutic without the use of extra-biblical sources (ie Josephus)? And if not, does that undermine WCF and LBC chapter 1?


----------



## Answerman

A large part of my being a preterist is based on Matthew 24 when Jesus says, "this generation will not pass". As well as studying how Jesus and the writers of the New Testament interpreted Old Testament prophetic passages.


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> Can one become convinced of the preterist hermeneutic without the use of extra-biblical sources (ie Josephus)? And if not, does that undermine WCF and LBC chapter 1?



Can one become convinced of the historicist hermeneutic without the use of extra-biblical sources (ie History of the Popes)? And if not, does that undermine WCF and LBC chapter 1?


----------



## ajrock2000

Answerman said:


> A large part of my being a preterist is based on Matthew 24 when Jesus says, "this generation will not pass". As well as studying how Jesus and the writers of the New Testament interpreted Old Testament prophetic passages.



Check this out and let me know what you think. I have been studying these things lately, and I cannot come to grips with pretorism.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/generation.shtml


----------



## tcalbrecht

ajrock2000 said:


> Check this out and let me know what you think. I have been studying these things lately, and I cannot come to grips with *pretorism*.
> 
> http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/generation.shtml




That's preterism. Pretorism presumably has to do with ancient Roman civil authority. 

But, as for the article, let me quote one section;



> Of course we are well aware of the Preterist claim that the end of the age was in 70 AD, but that is a Biblically untenable position. The proponents of this theory come to this conclusion by selectively interpreting age/world [aion], and then arbitrarily making the supposition that there was an end of the age in 70 AD. This, despite the fact that there is absolutely no Biblical warrant for declaring 70 AD as the end of an age. Not one single scripture makes that claim. And while they insist Matthew 24 (the end of the world) is a mistranslation of the word [aion] meaning age, they are still unable to coherently explain verses such as Luke chapter



The author does not really interact with the writings any real preterists, so the source of his information is questionable. Here is an example where much exegetical work as been done by preterists to help understand the nature of the question in Matthew 24. 

Rather than dealing with the material and how “end of the age” can apply to AD70 (in light of other passages such as Heb. 9:26 and in light of the common Jewish usage of that day), the author make broad statements without much to back them up.

Let’s look at another statement by the author:



> Luke 11:29
> 
> "And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet".
> 
> Again, the exact same Greek word [genea] that is translated generation in Matthew 24. *Was Christ speaking here of the Apostles or the 70 disciples that He sent out to witness two by two? *They were physically part of the literal generation of that day, but they were not part of generation that Christ is here speaking of. For Christ is not talking about the physical generation of that time anymore than He was talking about that in Matthew chapter 24. The evil and adulterous generation receives no sign but that of Jonas. But the generation or family of Christ, He has indeed given signs (Mark 16:20, Hebrews 2:4). These are two distinct generations. If we're only to understand the word "generation" to mean those living there at the time (as some insist we must), then none of the Apostles, nor anyone else in that day or generation could escape the damnation of hell. Because Christ said that generation couldn't. But the truth is a lot less complicated and in total agreement will all of scripture. The generation of evil that shall receive no signs, and that cannot escape the damnation of hell, is the family of Satan.



The author plainly misses the point of Christ’s words in that passage. Rather than clarify he clouds the issue.

Note statement; “For Christ is not talking about the physical generation of that time anymore than He was talking about that in Matthew chapter 24.”

He is assuming what he has to prove. The fact is the Jesus was speaking about a physical generation in Luke 11. It was the generation of Jews that would see the punishment for killing the son of the landowner. 

And they had received a sign, the “sign of Jonah”. Jesus rose from the dead after three days as a sign to that evil generation. 

To make it even clearer, compare Luke 11 with the parallel in Matthew 12, “But He answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.’”

Matthew adds the word “adulterous” to make it painfully clear He was speaking to the Jewish generation of that day. They were the wife of God who had played the harlot with other gods and other nations. They were the adulteress. 

No, I’m afraid I cannot give this article very high marks. It's overly spiritualized where words can pretty much mean whatever you want them to mean. 

And If nothing else it lacks real interaction with the folks he opposes.


----------



## ajrock2000

tcalbrecht said:


> The author does not really interact with the writings any real preterists, so the source of his information is questionable. Here is an example where much exegetical work as been done by preterists to help understand the nature of the question in Matthew 24.
> 
> Rather than dealing with the material and how “end of the age” can apply to AD70 (in light of other passages such as Heb. 9:26 and in light of the common Jewish usage of that day), the author make broad statements without much to back them up.



I think its a good thing to not interact with writings of any men. Just the Word of God. What I find mostly about pretorists is that they (shamefully) start quoting Josephus and other sources outside the Bible, which I will not regard as truth to interpret prophecy. The Bible will interpret itself.



> He is assuming what he has to prove. The fact is the Jesus was speaking about a physical generation in Luke 11. It was the generation of Jews that would see the punishment for killing the son of the landowner.



How do you come up with this? I see nothing after reading the passage that would conclude that it had to do with the Jews that that time.



> And they had received a sign, the “sign of Jonah”. Jesus rose from the dead after three days as a sign to that evil generation.
> 
> To make it even clearer, compare Luke 11 with the parallel in Matthew 12, “But He answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.’”
> 
> Matthew adds the word “adulterous” to make it painfully clear He was speaking to the Jewish generation of that day. They were the wife of God who had played the harlot with other gods and other nations. They were the adulteress.



I will take into consideration what you said! It seems to be reading into the passage to me. I will reply later, I have to go somewhere now.


----------



## tcalbrecht

ajrock2000 said:


> I think its a good thing to not interact with writings of any men. Just the Word of God. What I find mostly about pretorists is that they (shamefully) start quoting Josephus and other sources outside the Bible, which I will not regard as truth to interpret prophecy. The Bible will interpret itself.



Well, with all due respect, if you are going to critique a position you should be able to articulate that position without creating a strawman, such as the author has done. He seems to either be unfamiliar with or deliberately avoided many of the argument for the preterism view wrt the phrase “this generation”.

I must be missing something. How is it “shameful” to quote Josephus to document what happened in AD70, but not “shameful” to declare the Pope to be the “antichrist” based on historical documents?

Do you think the Pope==antichrist view is based entirely on the Bible alone?



ajrock2000 said:


> How do you come up with this? I see nothing after reading the passage that would conclude that it had to do with the Jews that that time.



Well, perhaps you are missing something. If you overly spiritualize the text and begin with the presupposition that “generation” means something other than a normal human generation, then you will obviously miss something.


----------



## KMK

Answerman said:


> A large part of my being a preterist is based on Matthew 24 when Jesus says, "this generation will not pass". As well as studying how Jesus and the writers of the New Testament interpreted Old Testament prophetic passages.



I see. Then you assume that that generation has indeed died off at some point because people do not live for 2000 years. And we can make that assumption even if we did not have the uninspired works of Josephus et al. That seems reasonable. But if those extra-biblical sources never existed, and we had no knowledge of what happened in 70 AD, would you still be compelled to choose the preterist hermeneutic over the more traditional views?


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> Can one become convinced of the historicist hermeneutic without the use of extra-biblical sources (ie History of the Popes)? And if not, does that undermine WCF and LBC chapter 1?



This does not really answer my original question. 

Are you asking because you see a parallel in the implications of my query with the historicist hermeneutic? If so, that would be an interesting question.

Or, are you trying to defend the compelling nature of the preterist hermeneutic by pointing out that the historicist also uses extra-biblical sources to arrive at their hermeneutic?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*The Thief in the Night*

Hey:

Matthew 24:43,44 reads:



> But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what wtch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready; for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.


It is clear that Jesus here says that not even the Elect will be able to determine the Coming of the Son of God. How, then, can this relate to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?

The Elect not only knew the Romans were coming, but they fled from the city as the Roman Army approached. According to all testimonies concerning the Jewish Rebellion it did not happen as "a thief in the night" nor was it unexpected. The words of Jesus here do not line up with the Preterist interpretation of things.

This is because Jesus is answering two questions put to Him by the disciples:



> Tell us, (1) when shall these things be (that is when shall Jerusalem be destroyed), and (2) what shall be the sign of thy coming , and of the end of the world? Matt. 24:3b.


In the first part of his answer he gives the disciples signs as to when Jerusalem be destroyed. In the second part of his answer Jesus tells the disciples that His Second Coming will be without signs, and will be without warning.

Peace,

-CH


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> This does not really answer my original question.
> 
> Are you asking because you see a parallel in the implications of my query with the historicist hermeneutic? If so, that would be an interesting question.
> 
> Or, are you trying to defend the compelling nature of the preterist hermeneutic by pointing out that the historicist also uses extra-biblical sources to arrive at their hermeneutic?



What I'm suggesting is that I do not know of any eschatological hermeneutic (sic) that does not look to extra-biblical sources for some sort of confirmation. The historicist approach relies on a proper interpretation of the history of the Roman papacy for its legitimacy. The futurist … well, that another matter altogether. 

I would say there is compelling internal and external evidence for the preterist approach to interpreting the Bible. 

Since the hermeneutics employed by the preterist is really no different that that used by any other Reformed/Calvinist interpreter, I am quite convinced that it is legitimate apart from external evidences. 

The only thing that is different is the conclusion reached by those who hold to the various positions within the Reformed worldview.


----------



## RamistThomist

just using the "words of God" alone could you justify your table of contents in your bible?


----------



## ajrock2000

tcalbrecht said:


> Well, with all due respect, if you are going to critique a position you should be able to articulate that position without creating a strawman, such as the author has done. He seems to either be unfamiliar with or deliberately avoided many of the argument for the preterism view wrt the phrase “this generation”.
> 
> I must be missing something. How is it “shameful” to quote Josephus to document what happened in AD70, but not “shameful” to declare the Pope to be the “antichrist” based on historical documents?
> 
> Do you think the Pope==antichrist view is based entirely on the Bible alone?



How does a view that I might have that you think is outside the Scriptures justify you having a source outside the Scriptures?

Anyways, when did I say the Pope was the antichrist? I do not believe that just the Pope is the antichrist. 1 John makes it clear to us who the 'antichrist' is. 



> Well, perhaps you are missing something. If you overly spiritualize the text and begin with the presupposition that “generation” means something other than a normal human generation, then you will obviously miss something.



I am not presupposing anything! I am new to these things, and I have an open mind. I have only been a Christian for 8 months. The word generation is used many times throughout the Bible and it is impossible in many of the cases for it to mean just the people standing there when he said it. It is used many times as a generation of evil vs us, the chosen generation. Do a keyword search on biblegateway for generation, and read all the results.

My biggest beef is that all the things in Matthew 24 did not take place in that generation as you suppose. So one must either accept the folly of full pretorism or not be it at all.

I do not want to cause strife here. I will not let differing view of prophecy come in the way of my Christ likeness, and I am sorry if I have.

In Christ,


----------



## KMK

Draught Horse said:


> just using the "words of God" alone could you justify your table of contents in your bible?



No. But by using WCF or LBC chapter 1 I could.

Are you implying that the answer to my OP is, "No, one cannot arrive at the preterist hermeneutic without extra-biblical sources, and that does not undermine WCF or LBC chapter 1. We cannot arrive at the canon of scripture w/o extra-biblical sources either." 

Is that the answer that you are implying? If so, that is fine. That is what I am trying to figure out.


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> What I'm suggesting is that I do not know of any eschatological hermeneutic (sic) that does not look to extra-biblical sources for some sort of confirmation. The historicist approach relies on a proper interpretation of the history of the Roman papacy for its legitimacy. The futurist … well, that another matter altogether.
> 
> I would say there is compelling internal and external evidence for the preterist approach to interpreting the Bible.
> 
> Since the hermeneutics employed by the preterist is really no different that that used by any other Reformed/Calvinist interpreter, I am quite convinced that it is legitimate apart from external evidences.
> 
> The only thing that is different is the conclusion reached by those who hold to the various positions within the Reformed worldview.



So you are saying that all eschatological hermeneutics require extra-biblical sources, so therefore, the preterist is justified in using those sources to justify their hermeneutic without undermining WCF/LBC chapter 1. Am I understanding you correctly?


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> So you are saying that all eschatological hermeneutics require extra-biblical sources, so therefore, the preterist is justified in using those sources to justify their hermeneutic without undermining WCF/LBC chapter 1. Am I understanding you correctly?



I do not know of a preterist who justifies their hermeneutics based principally on external evidence. As I said, the hermeneutical principle of the preterist is no different than the principle of any other Reformed Christian (I assume we are speaking of folks who hold to a Reformed worldview, i.e., subscribe to the WCF or 3Forms) when it comes to eschatology. One may come to different conclusions on the text even when employing the same set of principles.

WCF Chapter 1 says that “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” Preterists with whom I’m familiar all subscribe to that view (or some variation). 

Do you believe that preterists are forced to acknowledge some authority other than the Word of God to substantiate their views?


----------



## tcalbrecht

ajrock2000 said:


> How does a view that I might have that you think is outside the Scriptures justify you having a source outside the Scriptures?



I have no authoritative sources outside of the Bible. Nor does any preterist with whom I’m familiar.



ajrock2000 said:


> Anyways, when did I say the Pope was the antichrist? I do not believe that just the Pope is the antichrist. 1 John makes it clear to us who the 'antichrist' is.



I was using the historicist as an example of a view that seems to have the same issues as the preterist and futurist. To a certain degree they acknowledge the place of non-authoritative external source.




ajrock2000 said:


> I am not presupposing anything! I am new to these things, and I have an open mind. I have only been a Christian for 8 months.



My sincere suggestion is that you give up trying to understand eschatology until you get the basic biblical doctrines and principles of biblical interpretation under control. You need to appreciate the milk before you move to the meat.



ajrock2000 said:


> My biggest beef is that all the things in Matthew 24 did not take place in that generation as you suppose.



See my comment above. In my humble opinion, you are in no position to make such a determination at this time.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Tom Bombadil and I had some discourse on the subject - I am still unconvinced that preterism is necessary.


----------



## ajrock2000

tcalbrecht said:


> I have no authoritative sources outside of the Bible. Nor does any preterist with whom I’m familiar.



Josephus' writings. RC Sproul quotes him in his Reformation Bible, which I use.



> My sincere suggestion is that you give up trying to understand eschatology until you get the basic biblical doctrines and principles of biblical interpretation under control. You need to appreciate the milk before you move to the meat.



Thank you. I have been a true Christian for that long (8 months), but professing my whole life. I have been studying for longer than you think on these things. I have had to reform almost everything I once thought about almost everything, and now it actually means something to me (not just facts). I know that I have come to a sound hermeneutic when I stay within Scripture, and when Scripture does not confuse or contradict itself.



> See my comment above. In my humble opinion, you are in no position to make such a determination at this time.



Thats nice, you can still answer the question. It does not take a big theological brain for someone to read Matthew 24 and realize that all the things in Matthew 24 did not take place within that generation. (unless you really are willing to twist scripture around to full pretorism)


----------



## ajrock2000

jdlongmire said:


> Tom Bombadil and I had some discourse on the subject - I am still unconvinced that preterism is necessary.



Thanks for the link!


----------



## G.Wetmore

KMK said:


> So you are saying that all eschatological hermeneutics require extra-biblical sources, so therefore, the preterist is justified in using those sources to justify their hermeneutic without undermining WCF/LBC chapter 1. Am I understanding you correctly?



I think you are confusing some categories. There is a difference between using extra-Biblical sources as the basis of your hermeneutic, and using extra-Biblical sources to help you understand when certain historical prophecies were fulfilled.

Forget about preterism for a moment and just think about O.T. prophecy. We see certain prophecies against nations in the OT, but the OT doesn't necessarily tell us when those events took place. A person does not have an extra-Biblical hermeneutic because they find other historical sources to find out when the prophecy was fulfilled. The interpretation is done from the Scripture, and then other sources can tell us when those things occured. Sometimes Scripture tells us when prophecy was fulfilled, sometimes it doesn't. 

Therefore, the preteristic interpretation does not rely on an extra-Biblical hermeneutic. It interprets the Bible, and then that interpretation is confirmed by external evidence. Because one sees external evidence for a position does not at all mean that they have an extra-Biblical hermeneutic.

If you want to see what an extra-Biblical hermeneutic looks like, read about the Kliniean hermeneutic. In that system they use extra-Biblical Hittite suzerainty treates to form much of the Basis of their hermeneutic. 

That is completely unlike the preteristic interpretation. And notice how I framed that, preterism is an interpretation, it is not really a hermeneutical system.


----------



## G.Wetmore

ajrock2000 said:


> Josephus' writings. RC Sproul quotes him in his Reformation Bible, which I use.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I have been a true Christian for that long (8 months), but professing my whole life. I have been studying for longer than you think on these things. I have had to reform almost everything I once thought about almost everything, and now it actually means something to me (not just facts). I know that I have come to a sound hermeneutic when I stay within Scripture, and when Scripture does not confuse or contradict itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats nice, you can still answer the question. It does not take a big theological brain for someone to read Matthew 24 and realize that all the things in Matthew 24 did not take place within that generation. (unless you really are willing to twist scripture around to full pretorism)



I would recommend to you Kenneth Gentry's work on Matthew 24. In it, he takes the position that the first part is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, but then he shifts and begins to speak of his second coming. So he would actually agree with you concerning the passages which you sighted. And he is one of the most well known preterist around.


----------



## historyb

> Thats nice, you can still answer the question. It does not take a big theological brain for someone to read Matthew 24 and realize that all the things in Matthew 24 did not take place within that generation. (unless you really are willing to twist scripture around to full pretorism)


First welcome to Christ (seen you said 8 months now ) and the forums, now would be a great time to study, I know I have been studying reformed faith for a while and just scratched the surface of it.

Now I take umbrage to your interference that to take Matt 24 any other way than your way shows lack of brain power. If you didn't mean it, that's how it came off. 

I came from the left behind stuff and took Scripture and read it without *any* outside influence and came to the conclusion of perterism. Second please spell it right, it is perterism not pertorism. Thank you.


----------



## panta dokimazete

ajrock2000 said:


> Thanks for the link!


----------



## Iconoclast

*Mt24/coming/this generation*

Some of the writers who call themselves [Partial preterists] point out that the term this generation always speaks of the generation being spoken too.
So the coming of Jesus in Matthew 24,,,would not be the second coming of the last day,but rather "a coming in judgment" which was frequently spoken of in the OT. God is said to come in clouds in judgment. 
The judgment of AD.70/ they would teach,is what is referred to as the end of the age,ie,[ end of the OT.jewish age,] as per the book of hebrews.

It is only a possibility if the book of revelation has an early date of it's writing before 70 AD. Partial Preterists see the book of revelation as the Revelation of The Lamb that was slain/ rev4,,,rev 5,,,delivering judgements upon apostate Israel,for breaking the covenant terms of Deut. 28-32
The judgements go forth from Rev 6-19 upon apostate Israel who has made herself the adulterous harlot,with Rome. 
The answer to the question of those martyr's in Rev.6:9-11 is the judgment of 70ad,and the christians were to flee out of Babylon[jerusalem]
Rev.19-22 is still to be fulfilled,along with the second coming/white throne judgment


----------



## KMK

G.Wetmore said:


> I think you are confusing some categories. There is a difference between using extra-Biblical sources as the basis of your hermeneutic, and using extra-Biblical sources to help you understand when certain historical prophecies were fulfilled.



This is the question I am trying to answer!



G.Wetmore said:


> Forget about preterism for a moment and just think about O.T. prophecy. We see certain prophecies against nations in the OT, but the OT doesn't necessarily tell us *when *those events took place.



I think I agree. Can you clarify with an example?



G.Wetmore said:


> A person does not have an extra-Biblical hermeneutic because they find other historical sources to find out when the prophecy was fulfilled. The interpretation is done from the Scripture, and then other sources can tell us when those things occured. Sometimes Scripture tells us *when *prophecy was fulfilled, sometimes it doesn't.



But the issue is not just the *timing *of the fulfillment, but the *fact *of the fulfillment as well.



G.Wetmore said:


> Therefore, the preteristic interpretation does not rely on an extra-Biblical hermeneutic. It interprets the Bible, and then that interpretation is confirmed by external evidence. Because one sees external evidence for a position does not at all mean that they have an extra-Biblical hermeneutic.



So you believe that the preterist *interpretation* is compelling based on the time texts of Matt 24 etc, even w/o Josephus et al? I am not trying to bait you, but sincerely want to answer this question. Because there are other factors that affect interpretation, like historical theology for example. 



G.Wetmore said:


> ...preterism is an interpretation, it is not really a hermeneutical system.



However, you would have to admit, if it is indeed an interpretation, it has major implications on hermeneutics.

Thank you for your post, brother! You are helping to clear this matter up in my mind.


----------



## KMK

Iconoclast said:


> Some of the writers who call themselves [Partial preterists] point out that the term this generation always speaks of the generation being spoken too.
> So the coming of Jesus in Matthew 24,,,would not be the second coming of the last day,but rather "a coming in judgment" which was frequently spoken of in the OT. God is said to come in clouds in judgment.
> The judgment of AD.70/ they would teach,is what is referred to as the end of the age,ie,[ end of the OT.jewish age,] as per the book of hebrews.



To what *judgment of AD 70* are you referring? Can you give me chapter and verse?


----------



## tcalbrecht

ajrock2000 said:


> Josephus' writings. RC Sproul quotes him in his Reformation Bible, which I use.



Quoting someone and taking someone as an authoratative source are two different things. I’m sure that Sproul also quotes Calvin, but that does not mean he places Calvin on the same authority level as the Bible.



ajrock2000 said:


> Thats nice, you can still answer the question. It does not take a big theological brain for someone to read Matthew 24 and realize that all the things in Matthew 24 did not take place within that generation. (*unless you really are willing to twist scripture* around to full pretorism)



See my earlier comment about your relative immaturity. There are many respected biblical scholars who have come to just that conclusion based on the text and sound Reformed hermeneutics. I doubt they are twisting the Scripture to support pretorism (sic).

BTW, Sproul is not defend "full pretorism" (sic).


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> To what *judgment of AD 70* are you referring? Can you give me chapter and verse?



"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-22)


----------



## ajrock2000

> See my earlier comment about your relative immaturity. There are many respected biblical scholars who have come to just that conclusion based on the text and sound Reformed hermeneutics. I doubt they are twisting the Scripture to support pretorism (sic).
> 
> BTW, Sproul is not defend "full pretorism" (sic).



The only twisting I was talking about was for full preterism, which is absurd. I know RC Sproul doesn't defend full preterism, I never said he did. All I meant was that either all those things took place, or they did not. (so no preterism or full preterism). 



historyb said:


> Now I take umbrage to your interference that to take Matt 24 any other way than your way shows lack of brain power. If you didn't mean it, that's how it came off.



I am sorry if I came off the wrong way! I was just stating that reading Matthew 24, to me, is very straightforward in its context and meaning. It starts of speaking of false prophets and tribulation in verses 1-14, then somehow 15-20 refers to 70 AD, then Jesus speak of false prophets and apostasies again from 21 until His return. The context of the whole chapter is about false prophets and tribulation before His return, and Jesus speaking to His church to endure and to not follow false christs. 

Here is what RC Sproul's Bible says about the abomination of desolation,



> The phrase is from Daniel;in Dan 9:27; 11:31 it refers to the desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. In 168 BC Antiochus erected a pagan altar in the temple. According to Josephus, he also sacrificed swine there. Shortly before AD70 the zealots were in the temple precincts during the war with Rome, and their presence could have been considered a desecration. In AD70, the Romans entered the temple with military standards, ceremonial insignia that were elements of their religion. They took away the sacred vessels, including the lampstand, and burned the temple. Sculptures of their troops carrying the vessels are visible on the Arch of Titus in Rome.



There is no biblical warrant for making this assumption, and is all speculative.

Another question I have referring to this is, How is it that after Christ died (signified by the veil of the temple being split) there can be any fulfillment of a literal temple being holy (i.e. 'the holy place' in verse 15) since Christ was the fulfillment of that temple (John 2:18-21)?

*Hebrews 10:10-21*
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God

Be nice guys, I am still learning.  



> I came from the left behind stuff and took Scripture and read it without *any* outside influence and came to the conclusion of perterism. Second please spell it right, it is perterism not pertorism. Thank you.



Hmm, are you sure p*er*terism is the correct spelling? Isn't it p*re*terism?


----------



## tcalbrecht

ajrock2000 said:


> The only twisting I was talking about was for full preterism, which is absurd. I know RC Sproul doesn't defend full preterism, I never said he did. All I meant was that either all those things took place, or they did not. (so no preterism or full preterism).



Well then, who exactly are you picking on? Is it only “full preterist” who are guilty (in your mind) of Scripture twisting? Or does Sproul, et al engage in it also?

Have we resolved your issue of authority of Scripture vs the “authority” of Calvin? Do you now see that preterists have no ultimate authority other than the Word of God?

I think you need to clarify your issues rather than making broad statements that could be taken as offensive by many folks. 

And, just for the record, your issue seems to be not only with preterists, but also historicists. If you combine the two groups I think you will find they comprise the majority of folks on this board. I don’t think futuristism is widely held around here.



ajrock2000 said:


> I am sorry if I came off the wrong way! I was just stating that reading Matthew 24, to me, is very straightforward in its context and meaning. It starts of speaking of false prophets and tribulation in verses 1-14, then somehow 15-20 refers to 70 AD, then Jesus speak of false prophets and apostasies again from 21 until His return. The context of the whole chapter is about false prophets and tribulation before His return, and Jesus speaking to His church to endure and to not follow false christs.



For the record, my view is similar to Gentry’s. I take vv. 4-34 of Matthew 24 as referring to near term events in the 1st century. And then I believe vv. 36ff refers to the yet-future Second Coming. My two main reasons are 1) the use of the term “this generation” wrt the former section, and 2) the contrast between specificity and detail in the earlier section vs. uncertainty and suddenness in the second. E.g., in the first section the disciples are told to “flee to the mountains” indicting at least some time for warning and preparation. In the latter section no one knows when the Lord is coming (v. 42).




ajrock2000 said:


> Here is what RC Sproul's Bible says about the abomination of desolation,
> 
> There is no biblical warrant for making this assumption, and is all speculative.



How do you define assumption and speculation? Please give us your interpretation of “abomination of desolation” so we might compare it with Sproul. Also, be sure to compare the phrase in Matthew 24:15,16 with the parallel verse in Luke 21:20,21.


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-22)



Where does this passage say anything about the year AD 70?


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> Where does this passage say anything about the year AD 70?



Everywhere.  

Seriously, I'm sure you are familiar with the interpretation which sees the coming of the "days of vengeance" to "this generation" and the significance in the context of 1st century Judaism and the end of the old covenant system.

It is the same way we arrive at all sort of dates in the Bible, generally by interpretation of the text. E.g., Daniel’s “seventy weeks” is interpreted by most scholars to be referring to 490 years rather than days. Many historicists interpret the “one thousand two hundred and sixty days” of Revelation to be referring to years.

There are very few specific dates given in the Bible for counting purposes. Interpretation comes into play at some point. So, if your question really was “where is the literal date AD70 in the Bible,” then I acknowledge that the literal date is not found anywhere in the Bible. But that fact alone does not impact the proper interpretation of the text.


----------



## ajrock2000

tcalbrecht said:


> I think you need to clarify your issues rather than making broad statements that could be taken as offensive by many folks.



Ok, I will. I am sorry for making such broad statements, especially when I am not completely sure about all the differences between all the views.



> For the record, my view is similar to Gentry’s. I take vv. 4-34 of Matthew 24 as referring to near term events in the 1st century. And then I believe vv. 36ff refers to the yet-future Second Coming. My two main reasons are 1) the use of the term “this generation” wrt the former section, and 2) the contrast between specificity and detail in the earlier section vs. uncertainty and suddenness in the second. E.g., in the first section the disciples are told to “flee to the mountains” indicting at least some time for warning and preparation. In the latter section no one knows when the Lord is coming (v. 42).



So you believe the sun darkening, stars from heaven, heavens being shaken, and the sign of the coming of the Son of Man referred to 1st century events? 
If this is true, then why would Jesus say in v21, "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." This must refer to the end of time where rampant false prophets will deceive many. So in AD70 there was the greatest tribulation of false christs the world has ever seen to even deceive Christians if possible?



> How do you define assumption and speculation? Please give us your interpretation of “abomination of desolation” so we might compare it with Sproul. Also, be sure to compare the phrase in Matthew 24:15,16 with the parallel verse in Luke 21:20,21.



In a very concise nutshell...

We are told in Matt 24 that we when we 'see' the abomination of desolation in the holy place, to flee from it unto the mountains. The passage also says, "let the reader understand", and that tells me that I must take special care when interpreting it. The only place that can be holy after the cross and become an abomination is the external church (Christ cannot, nor can we, His true body). The old temple only represented and was a type of Christ, which through His death, was fulfilled once for all.

The abomination of desolation, I believe, is when the church forsakes the laws of God, and makes his own rules, goes after false gods, which makes that place desolate. (Lev 26, Jer 7:30-34;32:33-35, and many more) Jerusalem is to be understood spiritually (many do not like this) as the church (Israel of God) Judea, Jerusalem, are all types of places of the Lord's people, they represent the beloved city of God (1 Peter 2:9;Gal 4:26;Heb 12:22). I believe both Matt 24:15-16 and Luke 21:20-21 refer to the tribulation before the end of the world where the love of God grows cold, no one cares about God's statutes, and many false christs and prophets will appear and deceive many. This makes sense in light of many passages in Revelation, when Satan will be loosed to deceive the nations, and make war with the saints. In the external church, the Word of God and all who adhere to it will be trampled underfoot and hated of men. When Jerusalem is encompassed with armies, it signifies persecution of the church of God by the gentiles (nations) (we are represented spiritually as Jews - Romans 2:28-29). These are warnings to the church to watch out for, not to unbelieving Jews. When we see this abomination, we are to 'flee Judea unto the mountains', signifying fleeing unto the Lord's holy mountain and His word for protection. "As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the LORD surrounds his people, from this time forth and forevermore." (Psalm 125:2) It makes sense when it tells us to not turn back and get to out of that place because it is under the judgment of God. Rev 11 tells us to measure the temple of God (the external church) and _them that worship therein_,

*Rev 11:1-2*
And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. 

I used the KJV because it uses the word Gentiles, in newer translations, it is translated 'nations'. Ezekiel 40-44 says much about this...

*Ezekiel 43:10-11*
As for you, son of man, describe to the house of Israel the temple, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and they shall measure the plan. 

And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple, its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, that is, its whole design; and make known to them as well all its statutes and its whole design and all its laws, and write it down in their sight, so that they may observe all its laws and all its statutes and carry them out. 

This is all describing the church that has forsaken the statutes of God, and has now become an abomination in the sight of God, which will make it desolate.

Anyways, I believe I have written too much already...


----------



## tcalbrecht

ajrock2000 said:


> Anyways, I believe I have written too much already...




Whew! And how exactly is this less full of assumption and speculation and what Sproul wrote?  

So you see no 1st century historical setting for any of Jesus' warnings in the gospels? Rather, you believe it all needs to be highly spiritualized (e.g., every mention of Jerusalem means spiritual Jerusalem and every mention of Israel mean spiritual Israel) and applied to the apostate church or it makes no sense?

For the records, here's Calvin's comments on Matthew 24:34. You might find them helpful.



> _This generation shall not pass away_. Though Christ employs a general expression, yet he does not extend the discourses to all the miseries which would befall the Church, *but merely informs them, that before a single generation shall have been completed, they will learn by experience the truth of what he has said. For within fifty years the city was destroyed and the temple was razed, the whole country was reduced to a hideous desert, and the obstinacy of the world rose up against God. Nay more, their rage was inflamed to exterminate the doctrine of salvation, false teachers arose to corrupt the pure gospel by their impostures, religion sustained amazing shocks, and the whole company of the godly was miserably distressed.* Now though the same evils were perpetrated in uninterrupted succession for many ages afterwards, yet what Christ said was true, that, before the close of a single generation, believers would feel in reality, and by undoubted experience, the truth of his prediction; for the apostles endured the same things which we see in the present day. And yet it was not the design of Christ to promise to his followers that their calamities would be terminated within a short time, (for then he would have contradicted himself, having previously warned them that the end was not yet; but, in order to encourage them to perseverance, he expressly foretold that those things related to their own age. *The meaning therefore is: “This prophecy does not relate to evils that are distant, and which posterity will see after the lapse of many centuries, but which are now hanging over you, and ready to fall in one mass, so that there is no part of it which the present generation will not experience.”* So then, while our Lord heaps upon a, single generation every kind of calamities, he does not by any means exempt future ages from the same kind of sufferings, but only enjoins the disciples to be prepared for enduring them all with firmness.


----------



## ajrock2000

tcalbrecht said:


> Whew! And how exactly is this less full of assumption and speculation and what Sproul wrote?



Which parts are speculation? What parts am I going outside of the Word of God to interpret?



> So you see no 1st century historical setting for any of Jesus' warnings in the gospels? Rather, you believe it all needs to be highly spiritualized (e.g., every mention of Jerusalem means spiritual Jerusalem and every mention of Israel mean spiritual Israel) and applied to the apostate church or it makes no sense?



Not every mention of Jerusalem and Israel should be spirtualized. Why would you say this? You seem to be very biased against spirtualizing things, as many theologians are, and I am not sure why. I only spirtualize where the Bible deems it to be so. The Bible speaks in symbols, figures, and spirtual meanings all the time.

Edit: Interesting quote by Calvin, and it makes lots of sense. But where is the scripture to prove what he is saying? What source of information does he use to say all the things he says?

You still have not answered my question as to how a literal temple building can be a 'holy place' after the death of Christ and the veil being split! What do you think of that?


----------



## Iconoclast

*sun/moon /stars darkened*

ajrock you asked;So you believe the sun darkening, stars from heaven, heavens being shaken, and the sign of the coming of the Son of Man referred to 1st century events? 
If this is true, then why would Jesus say in v21, "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." This must refer to the end of time where rampant false prophets will deceive many. So in AD70 there was the greatest tribulation of false christs the world has ever seen to even deceive Christians if possible?

Similar language is used to describe the judgements of God upon earthly kingdoms,and the removal of them from being in power. Here it is in Isa.13:
6Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty. 

7Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt: 

8And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames. 

9Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. 

10For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. 

11And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. 

and again in Isa.34:Isaiah 34
1Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it. 

2For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter. 

3Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. 

4And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. 

5For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment. 

6The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. 

7And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. 

8For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. 

The heavens being rolled up as a scroll,,,is language used in REV:6:12-17 so if you combine the LK:21 passage cited by tcal,,,,you can see how the partial preterist seeks to make a biblical case. The earth did not cease to exist,when the heaven was said to roll up like a scroll,,,


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> Everywhere.
> 
> Seriously, I'm sure you are familiar with the interpretation which sees the coming of the "days of vengeance" to "this generation" and the significance in the context of 1st century Judaism and the end of the old covenant system.
> 
> It is the same way we arrive at all sort of dates in the Bible, generally by interpretation of the text. E.g., Daniel’s “seventy weeks” is interpreted by most scholars to be referring to 490 years rather than days. Many historicists interpret the “one thousand two hundred and sixty days” of Revelation to be referring to years.
> 
> There are very few specific dates given in the Bible for counting purposes. Interpretation comes into play at some point. So, if your question really was “where is the literal date AD70 in the Bible,” then I acknowledge that the literal date is not found anywhere in the Bible. *But that fact alone does not impact the proper interpretation of the text.*



Yes, of course I was being facetious. But that was the crux of my question. The preterist believes that it does not violate WCF/LBC chapter 1 when we use the works of Josephus et al to interpret Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21 etc.

And, as you pointed out, this interpretation (aided by extra-biblical sources) leads to a hermeneutic that is used to interpret other portions of scripture as well, and this still does no injustice to WCF/LBC chapter 1. (I am not arguing, but simply trying to clarify)


----------



## ajrock2000

Iconoclast said:


> Similar language is used to describe the judgements of God upon earthly kingdoms,and the removal of them from being in power.
> 
> The heavens being rolled up as a scroll,,,is language used in REV:6:12-17 so if you combine the LK:21 passage cited by tcal,,,,you can see how the partial preterist seeks to make a biblical case. The earth did not cease to exist,when the heaven was said to roll up like a scroll,,,



I am not too sure of the point you are trying to make.  

So by those passages you believe that the earth can still exist and yet have the constellations, stars, and sun not give their light?


----------



## Iconoclast

*sun,moon stars*

ajrock,,,, you are thinking of the literal sun,moon, and stars.
But sometimes they are used to speak of human governments,rulers etc,
Starting with Joseph's dream,in Genesis,,,, In Isa, they were speaking about judgment that came upon Edom,and Babylon,,,,,not the physical literal sun,and moon.


----------



## historyb

ajrock2000 said:


> Hmm, are you sure p*er*terism is the correct spelling? Isn't it p*re*terism?



Yep your right it's preterism,  and I'm a proofreader for a magazine. Don't do so good proof reading myself


----------



## Answerman

Asa,

Most people admit that eschatology is one of the most difficult biblical doctrines to come to any solid conclusions on and so I don't think that a brief discussion is going to settle any issues or change any minds. That said, I would like provide a summary outline of why I hold to a preterist view.

1. Malachi prophecies that God will send Elijah before, "great and dreadful day of the LORD". John the Baptist asks the Pharisee’s, "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come" knowing that they did not show the fruits of repentance and that judgment was just around the corner for those that were listening to his preaching. Jesus proclaims that John was the Elijah that was to come. The angel of the LORD quotes from that same prophecy in Malachi to tell John's father, Zacharia, that John is the Elijah that Malachi prophesied. Jesus constantly warns that generation that He was living among that judgment is coming. And which generation would be more deserving of these warnings than the one that was witnessing the very Son of God walking among them?

2. Joel prophecies the God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh before the "great and awesome day of the LORD." Peter quotes from this passage (he says, "This is That which was spoken...") to explain what was happening on the day of Pentecost and he includes the part of the prophecy that uses cosmic catastrophic language as was used in the prophecies against Egypt and Babylon, prophecies which had already come to pass. This was part of the reason that the crowd responded, "they were cut to the heart and said, men and brethren, what shall we do?"

3. Amos predicts a sifting of Israel and a "rebuilding of the tabernacle of David" (Amos 9:9-12). James quotes from this passage "I will set it up, so that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name." and explains how the fulfillment of this passage was the explanation for a surge of Gentiles coming into the kingdom.

4. God prophecies to David that one day He will raise up the Christ to sit on his throne. Peter declares this prophecy to be fulfilled at the resurrection (and I would add the subsequent ascension) of Christ (Acts 2:30-32). And by the way Christ is now seated on the highest throne there is and would only be humiliating Himself if He came down to earth to sit on an earthly throne. (Yes, this is a shot at premillenialists)  

5. Isaiah prophecies a new heaven and earth where death is still occurring and sinners are still present, but it will be more glorious than the old order of things (Isaiah 65:17-25). (This is my shot at Amillenialists) 

This is just a sampling of passages that I believe prove that a preterist and/or postmillennial hermeneutic is not without a strong Biblical case. This is why my first comment in this thread was based on, “studying how Jesus and the writers of the New Testament interpreted Old Testament prophetic passages.” This is what led me to my position and what I believe will lead others to this position.


----------



## JohnV

KMK said:


> Can one become convinced of the preterist hermeneutic without the use of extra-biblical sources (ie Josephus)? And if not, does that undermine WCF and LBC chapter 1?



Ken:

Are you asking about extra sources outside of the Bible being seen as infallible? E.g., the works of Josephus being used as an infallible confirmation of how Matt. 24 is to be interpreted? Are you asking if the "Scripture interpreting Scripture" principle is being violated in some respect by imposition from other sources?


----------



## G.Wetmore

KMK said:


> Quote:
> _Originally Posted by G.Wetmore
> I think you are confusing some categories. There is a difference between using extra-Biblical sources as the basis of your hermeneutic, and using extra-Biblical sources to help you understand when certain historical prophecies were fulfilled._
> *This is the question I am trying to answer!*
> 
> Quote:
> _Originally Posted by G.Wetmore
> Forget about preterism for a moment and just think about O.T. prophecy. We see certain prophecies against nations in the OT, but the OT doesn't necessarily tell us when those events took place._
> 
> *I think I agree. Can you clarify with an example?*
> 
> Quote:
> _Originally Posted by G.Wetmore
> A person does not have an extra-Biblical hermeneutic because they find other historical sources to find out when the prophecy was fulfilled. The interpretation is done from the Scripture, and then other sources can tell us when those things occured. Sometimes Scripture tells us when prophecy was fulfilled, sometimes it doesn't.
> _
> *But the issue is not just the timing of the fulfillment, but the fact of the fulfillment as well.*
> 
> Quote:
> _Originally Posted by G.Wetmore
> Therefore, the preteristic interpretation does not rely on an extra-Biblical hermeneutic. It interprets the Bible, and then that interpretation is confirmed by external evidence. Because one sees external evidence for a position does not at all mean that they have an extra-Biblical hermeneutic.
> _
> *So you believe that the preterist *interpretation* is compelling based on the time texts of Matt 24 etc, even w/o Josephus et al? I am not trying to bait you, but sincerely want to answer this question. Because there are other factors that affect interpretation, like historical theology for example. *
> 
> Quote:
> _Originally Posted by G.Wetmore
> ...preterism is an interpretation, it is not really a hermeneutical system.
> _
> *However, you would have to admit, if it is indeed an interpretation, it has major implications on hermeneutics.
> 
> Thank you for your post, brother! You are helping to clear this matter up in my mind.*



I think you may have missed my point on the various OT examples. The point is not just that Scripture often doesn't give us the date of a prophetic fulfillment, but it often doesn't give us any account of the fulfillment. It is not as though someone picks a historical event and then goes back to Scripture to see where he can read that in. The interpretation is done in the Scriptures, and then the historical details of that interpretation are seen in external sources. This is not at all having an extra-Biblical hermeneutic.

You say:


> However, you would have to admit, if it is indeed an interpretation, it has major implications on hermeneutics.


I don't really think it does have major implications on hermeneutics, in fact I don't think it affects them at all. A Biblical hermeneutic, in which Scripture is used to interpret Scripture, does not neccesitate the abandoment of all external evidence. The evidence is not the basis for the interpretation, it is the simply an external evidence, or confirmation of it. that is a big difference. What the confession forbids is the importation of an extra-Biblical standard which would then be opposed upon the text and used as the framework for interpretation. Again, I would reference the Klinean use of Hittite Suzerainty treates as an example of that. 

Is that making any sense to you? If not, where would you like me to clarify?

Hope this helps.


----------



## KMK

JohnV said:


> Ken:
> 
> Are you asking about extra sources outside of the Bible being seen as infallible? E.g., the works of Josephus being used as an infallible confirmation of how Matt. 24 is to be interpreted? Are you asking if the "Scripture interpreting Scripture" principle is being violated in some respect by imposition from other sources?



Yes! That is the question I am trying to answer as I try to nail down my own views on escatology. If we use Josephus to establish interpretation and therefore hermeneutic and therefore doctrine, how is that different than using the Apocrypha to do so?


----------



## ajrock2000

Answerman said:


> Asa,
> 
> Most people admit that eschatology is one of the most difficult biblical doctrines to come to any solid conclusions on and so I don't think that a brief discussion is going to settle any issues or change any minds. That said, I would like provide a summary outline of why I hold to a preterist view.



Yeah, I realize this. It is not really my intent to convince anyone. Because, although it is in the Bible therefore it is important, eschatology can be dangerous at times to talk about because it can cause disputes and dissensions among God's people, which is a shame!  



> 1. Malachi prophecies that God will send Elijah before, "great and dreadful day of the LORD". John the Baptist asks the Pharisee’s, "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come" knowing that they did not show the fruits of repentance and that judgment was just around the corner for those that were listening to his preaching. Jesus proclaims that John was the Elijah that was to come. The angel of the LORD quotes from that same prophecy in Malachi to tell John's father, Zacharia, that John is the Elijah that Malachi prophesied. Jesus constantly warns that generation that He was living among that judgment is coming. And which generation would be more deserving of these warnings than the one that was witnessing the very Son of God walking among them?



Without getting into a meaning debate on the word 'generation', I do not believe that any generation is 'more deserving' than any other. We are all just as guilty as the next, and just as much depraved sinners as any other man ever was. Should we have existed then, we would have denied and hated Jesus just as much if it not for God's grace lavished upon our hearts. I do absolutely believe that the Jews who saw Jesus do miracles and still rejected Him will receive much greater condemnation when Jesus Christ returns and judges them. Matt 11:20-24 states clearly that, in the day of Judgment, those cities will receive a greater condemnation than even Sodom.


----------



## KMK

G.Wetmore said:


> I think you may have missed my point on the various OT examples. The point is not just that Scripture often doesn't give us the date of a prophetic fulfillment, but it often doesn't give us any account of the fulfillment. It is not as though someone picks a historical event and then goes back to Scripture to see where he can read that in. The interpretation is done in the Scriptures, and then the historical details of that interpretation are seen in external sources. This is not at all having an extra-Biblical hermeneutic.
> 
> You say:
> 
> I don't really think it does have major implications on hermeneutics, in fact I don't think it affects them at all. A Biblical hermeneutic, in which Scripture is used to interpret Scripture, does not neccesitate the abandoment of all external evidence. *The evidence is not the basis for the interpretation, it is the simply an external evidence, or confirmation of it. *that is a big difference. What the confession forbids is the importation of an extra-Biblical standard which would then be opposed upon the text and used as the framework for interpretation. Again, I would reference the Klinean use of Hittite Suzerainty treates as an example of that.
> 
> Is that making any sense to you? If not, where would you like me to clarify?
> 
> Hope this helps.



This is very helpful! You believe that the preterist *interpretation* is necessary based on scripture alone, and conveniently *confirmed* by external evidence. Is that correct?


----------



## G.Wetmore

KMK said:


> This is very helpful! You believe that the preterist *interpretation* is necessary based on scripture alone, and conveniently *confirmed* by external evidence. Is that correct?



Well it depends on exactly what you mean. I think that you might be using the term "preterist interpretation" differently than me. By it I mean, for example, that in Matt 24 (at least through verse 34, whether or not the rest of the passage is included is irrelevant to this discussion and is really an inner dialogue amongst preterists) Jesus teaches a coming judgment on Jerusalem in the immediate future (the immediate future of his present audience in the first century). In fact it was to take place within that very generation. That interpretation is based upon Scripture alone. I am sold on that interpretation because of Scripture. I would then go to external sources and ask the question, exactly when did that happen. I know the general timeframe of when it must have taken place, within their generation, but I don't know the exact historical date. When I go to these sources, lo and behold, there it is. And detail by detail is confirmed in the histories. I then see that Jerusalem was destroyed in a.d. 70. This is what I mean by having a Scriptural hermeneutic to arrive at an interpretation. And then to find confirmation for that interpretation with external evidence. 
Now if by "preterest interpretation" you mean can I prove based on the Scriptures alone the historical date (a.d. 70) of the fulfillment, then the answer is no. But that is not interpretation. The Bible doesn't have the date a.d. 70 written in it, but I don't see that as a specific problem for the preterist school. I don't see any specific dates in those passages. I see time frame references, but not dates. Therefore every prophetic school has to deal with that issue, it is not a problem in general, and if it was it would be a problem for every school of interpretation, not just preterists.

Does this answer your question?


----------



## tcalbrecht

ajrock2000 said:


> Without getting into a meaning debate on the word 'generation', *I do not believe that any generation is 'more deserving' than any other.* We are all just as guilty as the next, and just as much depraved sinners as any other man ever was. Should we have existed then, we would have denied and hated Jesus just as much if it not for God's grace lavished upon our hearts. *I do absolutely believe that the Jews who saw Jesus do miracles and still rejected Him will receive much greater condemnation when Jesus Christ returns and judges them.* Matt 11:20-24 states clearly that, in the day of Judgment, those cities will receive a greater condemnation than even Sodom.



How do these two comments fit together? How is it that no generation is more deserving of judgment than another, and yet the Jews of that generation will receive a greater condemnation?

What am I missing?

You said they will, “will receive much greater condemnation.” Much greater condemnation than whom? Sodom and Gomorrah, the epitome of depravity! But why is that? Because Israel had the very oracles of God, the law and the prophets, and they witnesses in person the coming the Prophet who was to come with great signs and wonders. And yet they rejected Him. So it isn’t just a matter of depravity. There were, no doubt, far more “depraved” nations in the world when Jesus arrived on the scene. They did not receive the condemnation of Jesus. It was Israel, the wife of God, who was under the curse of God for playing the harlot and rejecting the Christ.

Nope, I think there is something more to the interpretation than “we are all just as guilty” as Israel.


----------



## ajrock2000

tcalbrecht said:


> How do these two comments fit together? How is it that no generation is more deserving of judgment than another, and yet the Jews of that generation will receive a greater condemnation?
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> You said they will, “will receive much greater condemnation.” Much greater condemnation than whom? Sodom and Gomorrah, the epitome of depravity! But why is that? Because Israel had the very oracles of God, the law and the prophets, and they witnesses in person the coming the Prophet who was to come with great signs and wonders. And yet they rejected Him. So it isn’t just a matter of depravity. There were, no doubt, far more “depraved” nations in the world when Jesus arrived on the scene. They did not receive the condemnation of Jesus. It was Israel, the wife of God, who was under the curse of God for playing the harlot and rejecting the Christ.



I agree with you that they are guilty of a lot more than others based on their rejection and unbelief upon seeing Christ and witnessing Him. I just do not agree that AD70 had anything to do with it. I disagree that they were 'more depraved' than other people. We are all desperately wicked beyond knowledge without the restraining grace of God. Yes, Jews who rejected Jesus will receive a greater condemnation in the _Day of Judgment_. Same as any other person who dies unconverted who will be in the same boat as them having every thought and deed taken into account. Any person unconverted (including Jews in Jesus' time all the way back to Cain) are all of the kingdom of Satan, whose father is the devil.


----------



## tcalbrecht

ajrock2000 said:


> I agree with you that they are guilty of a lot more than others based on their rejection and unbelief upon seeing Christ and witnessing Him. I just do not agree that AD70 had anything to do with it. I disagree that they were 'more depraved' than other people. We are all desperately wicked beyond knowledge without the restraining grace of God. *Yes, Jews who rejected Jesus will receive a greater condemnation in the Day of Judgment.* Same as any other person who dies unconverted who will be in the same boat as them having every thought and deed taken into account. Any person unconverted (including Jews in Jesus' time all the way back to Cain) are all of the kingdom of Satan, whose father is the devil.



But is it not true that God’s judgment is not limited to the eternal, but also to the temporal? Didn’t God temporally judge Israel and Judah for their unbelief by the hand of the Assyrians and Babylonians? Did not God also judge Babylon and Egypt for their treatment of Israel? And just look at the message of the Judges, constant judgment against Israel. 

Did not Jonah preach a warning of temporal judgment, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?

Speaking of Jonah, is it not entirely possible that when Jesus told the Jews that the only sign they would receive was the sign of the Jonah, that this message of temporal judgment (“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”) was behind this word of warning? The only difference is that Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah. But when the greater than Jonah appeared to Israel, they refused His message and killed the son of the landowner.

And what was the result? “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.” (Matt. 21:43)

This was temporal judgment, my friend. If God could do it to all those nations, including Israel, before Christ, why do we think He must suddenly change His program towards national Israel when they were playing the harlot from God’s covenant faithfulness?

God effectively transferred the kingdom from national Israel to the universal Church by one act of destroying all the old covenant cultic elements, temple, priesthood, and sacrifices. 

“In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb. 8:13)


----------



## JohnV

KMK said:


> Yes! That is the question I am trying to answer as I try to nail down my own views on escatology. If we use Josephus to establish interpretation and therefore hermeneutic and therefore doctrine, how is that different than using the Apocrypha to do so?



It may interest you to know that in my Reformed background an individual's own eschatological views were considered to be extra-Biblical. In other words, the word "Biblical" was used in two separate ways. First, it refered to doctrine, to things which God expressly made known to us in the Bible, or which followed necessarily from the Bible. Secondly, it referred to things whose bases were only from the Bible. So in one sense one's eschatological views were "Biblical" in that the basis from which one derived his view was only from the Bible. In this sense, one could read Josephus or even other secular historical writings, not as support, but as worldly witness. But in the first sense it could not be called "Biblical" because it could not be said that the Bible teaches it. One could make an argument either for or against Biblical support, but the support would not be sufficient to say that the Bible affirmed the argument. The Church's witness is that there is not enough Biblical support or any one of the views to say with authority that such a view is the one the Bible declares. 

The preachers under which I was taught never dared to go beyond the first. Their mandate did not include preaching as Biblical the second. That was the liberty of all the people alike, status of office making no difference as to the equality of the views, or to the liberties of each. It was, in fact, a breaking of the mandate to preach as Biblical in the first sense what was Biblical in the second sense. 

There was a minister who said perhaps one paragraph in his sermon which was disparaging of militant Postmillennialism in a predominantly Amillennial congregation. He was severely raked over the coals for this, for going beyond his mandate as a minister of the gospel. 

The gospel is the gospel; personal views, no matter how convinced a person may be about it, are not gospel but only personal views. 

So in this sense, whether one includes the writings of Josephus or other writings does not matter, because it is forbidden to include things as gospel or teachable doctrine what is not gospel or teachable doctrine. There is no mandate for that from Christ. Whether one reads Josephus for historical verification for his particular preterist views is not really much of a problem, because it is only a personal view anyways, and it may not impact the teaching of Scripture. Only Scripture may interpret Scripture. Speculating from Scripture and using that to interpret Scripture is not Scripture interpreting Scripture in the strict sense that the Reformers meant it. 

Well, that's my two cents' worth (Canadian, which is about 1.8 cents US today.)


----------



## KMK

G.Wetmore said:


> Well it depends on exactly what you mean. I think that you might be using the term "preterist interpretation" differently than me. By it I mean, for example, that in Matt 24 (at least through verse 34, whether or not the rest of the passage is included is irrelevant to this discussion and is really an inner dialogue amongst preterists) Jesus teaches a coming judgment on Jerusalem in the immediate future (the immediate future of his present audience in the first century). In fact it was to take place within that very generation. That interpretation is based upon Scripture alone. I am sold on that interpretation because of Scripture. I would then go to external sources and ask the question, exactly when did that happen. I know the general timeframe of when it must have taken place, within their generation, but I don't know the exact historical date. When I go to these sources, lo and behold, there it is. And detail by detail is confirmed in the histories. I then see that Jerusalem was destroyed in a.d. 70. This is what I mean by having a Scriptural hermeneutic to arrive at an interpretation. And then to find confirmation for that interpretation with external evidence.
> Now if by "preterest interpretation" you mean can I prove based on the Scriptures alone the historical date (a.d. 70) of the fulfillment, then the answer is no. But that is not interpretation. The Bible doesn't have the date a.d. 70 written in it, but I don't see that as a specific problem for the preterist school. I don't see any specific dates in those passages. I see time frame references, but not dates. Therefore every prophetic school has to deal with that issue, it is not a problem in general, and if it was it would be a problem for every school of interpretation, not just preterists.
> 
> Does this answer your question?



Yes, it answers one of my questions. BTW, I am using your first definition of *preterist interpretation*. 

Now my question is, when you were on your journey to discover the correct interpretation, did it take you on the course that you described above? In other words,, did you see the time texts and say to yourself, "That must mean within 40 years." And then somewhere down the road you ran into Josephus and confirmed the interpretation that you already adopted?

Or did it work like this (which is the norm for most preterists I have talked to)... You are on a journey to understand Matt 24 and you run into Gentry et al who teaches you about how Josephus describes events in 70 AD that can only be fulfillment of Matt 24. You go and study Matt 24 and find no objection with Gentry so you adopt that interpretation also and proceed to make all of your dispensational friends' lives miserable.  If that is the case, do you think you would still have arrived at the same interpretation even if those extra-biblical sources did not exist. 'This generation' would be enough for you in spite of the large majority of Historical Theology that would disagree with you.

BTW, I am not a Dispensational.


----------



## KMK

JohnV said:


> It may interest you to know that in my Reformed background an individual's own eschatological views were considered to be extra-Biblical. In other words, the word "Biblical" was used in two separate ways. First, it refered to doctrine, to things which God expressly made known to us in the Bible, or which followed necessarily from the Bible. Secondly, it referred to things whose bases were only from the Bible. So in one sense one's eschatological views were "Biblical" in that the basis from which one derived his view was only from the Bible. In this sense, one could read Josephus or even other secular historical writings, not as support, but as worldly witness. But in the first sense it could not be called "Biblical" because it could not be said that the Bible teaches it. One could make an argument either for or against Biblical support, but the support would not be sufficient to say that the Bible affirmed the argument. The Church's witness is that there is not enough Biblical support or any one of the views to say with authority that such a view is the one the Bible declares.
> 
> The preachers under which I was taught never dared to go beyond the first. Their mandate did not include preaching as Biblical the second. That was the liberty of all the people alike, status of office making no difference as to the equality of the views, or to the liberties of each. It was, in fact, a breaking of the mandate to preach as Biblical in the first sense what was Biblical in the second sense.
> 
> There was a minister who said perhaps one paragraph in his sermon which was disparaging of militant Postmillennialism in a predominantly Amillennial congregation. He was severely raked over the coals for this, for going beyond his mandate as a minister of the gospel.
> 
> The gospel is the gospel; personal views, no matter how convinced a person may be about it, are not gospel but only personal views.
> 
> So in this sense, whether one includes the writings of Josephus or other writings does not matter, because it is forbidden to include things as gospel or teachable doctrine what is not gospel or teachable doctrine. There is no mandate for that from Christ. Whether one reads Josephus for historical verification for his particular preterist views is not really much of a problem, because it is only a personal view anyways, and it may not impact the teaching of Scripture. Only Scripture may interpret Scripture. Speculating from Scripture and using that to interpret Scripture is not Scripture interpreting Scripture in the strict sense that the Reformers meant it.
> 
> Well, that's my two cents' worth (Canadian, which is about 1.8 cents US today.)



John, you have lifted a great burden off of my chest with these words. Thank you. This is something I wrestle with as a preacher. I believe I must preach the whole gospel. But maybe something as personal as the preterist, historicist or futurist view should not be expounded from the pulpit. Perhaps preaching on Matt 24, 2 Pet 3, Rev 19,20 should be focused on Christ, the cross, His resurrection, His dominion etc.

But this brings up a new question. If we stick solely to what the NT writers actually believed and taught, wouldn't the futurist hermeneutic be used? Doesn't the futurist hermeneutic follow most closely with what the NT writers teach? After all, were not Jesus and Paul and John and Peter all futurists themselves?


----------



## JohnV

KMK said:


> John, you have lifted a great burden off of my chest with these words. Thank you. This is something I wrestle with as a preacher. I believe I must preach the whole gospel. But maybe something as personal as the preterist, historicist or futurist view should not be expounded from the pulpit. Perhaps preaching on Matt 24, 2 Pet 3, Rev 19,20 should be focused on Christ, the cross, His resurrection, His dominion etc.


As a preacher, your mandate is the preach the gospel. But as a preacher your own opinions are no more nor less than someone who is not allowed to preach because he is not ordained. E.g., office does not make the difference as to which millennial view is Biblical: it has nothing to do with the debate on the differences between the views. Adding your position to the debate is an abuse of that position. At least, that's what I believe. 



> But this brings up a new question. If we stick solely to what the NT writers actually believed and taught, wouldn't the futurist hermeneutic be used? Doesn't the futurist hermeneutic follow most closely with what the NT writers teach? After all, were not Jesus and Paul and John and Peter all futurists themselves?


Don't you know? Doesn't the Bible say? That's your criteria. Who else would you query on this? Josephus?


----------



## KMK

JohnV said:


> As a preacher, your mandate is the preach the gospel. But as a preacher your own opinions are no more nor less than someone who is not allowed to preach because he is not ordained. E.g., office does not make the difference as to which millennial view is Biblical: it has nothing to do with the debate on the differences between the views. Adding your position to the debate is an abuse of that position. At least, that's what I believe.
> 
> 
> Don't you know? Doesn't the Bible say? That's your criteria. Who else would you query on this? Josephus?



Your opinion on this makes a great deal of sense to me. I am slow to learn this lesson, I am afraid, because so many of the preachers that I cut my teeth on (Calvary Chapel) preach dispensationalism at least once a month! I have also heard many 'reformed' preachers do the same. I did hear a reformed preacher recently preach about the number 666 in Revelation and focused the entire sermon on Christ without once going into a particular end times view. It was so refreshing!

Are any of your sermons available online, John?


----------



## JohnV

KMK said:


> Are any of your sermons available online, John?


Not likely, Ken. I'm not a preacher. I've never written a sermon. I'm just an ordinary believer.


----------



## G.Wetmore

KMK said:


> Yes, it answers one of my questions. BTW, I am using your first definition of *preterist interpretation*.
> 
> Now my question is, when you were on your journey to discover the correct interpretation, did it take you on the course that you described above? In other words,, did you see the time texts and say to yourself, "That must mean within 40 years." And then somewhere down the road you ran into Josephus and confirmed the interpretation that you already adopted?
> 
> Or did it work like this (which is the norm for most preterists I have talked to)... You are on a journey to understand Matt 24 and you run into Gentry et al who teaches you about how Josephus describes events in 70 AD that can only be fulfillment of Matt 24. You go and study Matt 24 and find no objection with Gentry so you adopt that interpretation also and proceed to make all of your dispensational friends' lives miserable.  If that is the case, do you think you would still have arrived at the same interpretation even if those extra-biblical sources did not exist. 'This generation' would be enough for you in spite of the large majority of Historical Theology that would disagree with you.
> 
> BTW, I am not a Dispensational.



Yes, I took that course. And it wasn't just that one verse. I was at one time a hard-core dispensational chart reader  After I became calvinistic in my soteriology I rejected dispensationalism and began to study eschatology. I saw many time frame references, not just Matt 24. And the first book I read on the subject was Sproul's the last days according to Jesus. I then became acquainted with Dr. Gentry's writings. I then began to attend Dr. Gentry's church. He eventually moved, and ended up in South Carolina, and I moved into the manse at the church he was pastoring, while I'm attending seminary. The only reason I am saying this is that I have known him for quite a while, and he is a good friend. Gentry does not argue for preterism based upon the writings of Josephus. He does interact extensively with Josephus, but this is not the basis of his argument.

I think that some of the whole confusion in this discussion is the use of the word hermeneutic as it relates to these various eschatological schools. A hermeneutic is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It is the system one employs to arrive at an interpretation. These docrtrine are themselves interpretations, they are not a system that is placed upon Scripture as a framework of interpretation. I know many preterists, and I don't know of any that would hold to that.


----------



## G.Wetmore

KMK said:


> John, you have lifted a great burden off of my chest with these words. Thank you. This is something I wrestle with as a preacher. I believe I must preach the whole gospel. But maybe something as personal as the preterist, historicist or futurist view should not be expounded from the pulpit. Perhaps preaching on Matt 24, 2 Pet 3, Rev 19,20 should be focused on Christ, the cross, His resurrection, His dominion etc.
> 
> But this brings up a new question. If we stick solely to what the NT writers actually believed and taught, wouldn't the futurist hermeneutic be used? Doesn't the futurist hermeneutic follow most closely with what the NT writers teach? After all, were not Jesus and Paul and John and Peter all futurists themselves?



The job of a pastor, as it relates to his preaching the Scriptures, is at least two fold. You must preach sola scriptura, but you must preach tota scriptura as well. Only scripture, but all of scripture. This doesn't mean that you have to preach through every book of the Bible. But if you were for example preaching through Matthew, I think it would not be true exposition to not deal with some of these issues. Especially because so many people sitting in the pews are being tossed to and fro by every wind of eschatological doctrine. 

And by the way, the following statement, again shows the misuse of the term hermeneutic:


> But this brings up a new question. If we stick solely to what the NT writers actually believed and taught, wouldn't the futurist hermeneutic be used? Doesn't the futurist hermeneutic follow most closely with what the NT writers teach? After all, were not Jesus and Paul and John and Peter all futurists themselves?


The NT writers would have actually had some futurist interpretations and some preterist (in the past) interpretations. It would all depend upon the specific prophecy which was being dealt with. There is no overall encompasing scheme that can be placed upon Scripture, where all prophecies must be future or in the past. With respect to many NT prophecies, and some OT ones, the writers of the NT would have been futurists, because they hadn't taken place yet. But with respect to many OT prophecies they would have been preterists, because they had already been fulfilled. Just read through Matthew and you will hear the constant refrain "to fulfill...." or "so that it might be fulfilled...". With respect to these prophecies they viewed them as being in the past. Likewise, the orthodox preterist (today) does not believe every prophecy has been fulfilled. So in the sense that they are only partial preterists, they are also partial futurists. 

What is simply being said here is that text need to be dealt with on a text by text basis. There is no blanket scheme or hermeneutic that can solve these issues


----------



## KMK

JohnV said:


> Not likely, Ken. I'm not a preacher. I've never written a sermon. I'm just an ordinary believer.



That doesn't seem likely. 

But to the point, then, on what occasions would it be appropriate for a TE to share his views on the timing of Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21?


----------



## KMK

G.Wetmore said:


> The job of a pastor, as it relates to his preaching the Scriptures, is at least two fold. You must preach sola scriptura, but you must preach tota scriptura as well. Only scripture, but all of scripture. This doesn't mean that you have to preach through every book of the Bible. But if you were for example preaching through Matthew, I think it would not be true exposition to not deal with some of these issues. Especially because so many people sitting in the pews are being tossed to and fro by every wind of eschatological doctrine.
> 
> And by the way, the following statement, again shows the misuse of the term hermeneutic:
> 
> The NT writers would have actually had some futurist interpretations and some preterist (in the past) interpretations. It would all depend upon the specific prophecy which was being dealt with. There is no overall encompasing scheme that can be placed upon Scripture, where all prophecies must be future or in the past. With respect to many NT prophecies, and some OT ones, the writers of the NT would have been futurists, because they hadn't taken place yet. But with respect to many OT prophecies they would have been preterists, because they had already been fulfilled. Just read through Matthew and you will hear the constant refrain "to fulfill...." or "so that it might be fulfilled...". With respect to these prophecies they viewed them as being in the past. Likewise, the orthodox preterist (today) does not believe every prophecy has been fulfilled. So in the sense that they are only partial preterists, they are also partial futurists.
> 
> What is simply being said here is that text need to be dealt with on a text by text basis. There is no blanket scheme or hermeneutic that can solve these issues



I agree. I was refering specifically to those prophecies in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. My point is that Paul, John and Peter, when 'looking back' to the prophecies of Jesus in those passages would have *interpreted* them to refer to some time in the future. Thus, wouldn't they be called 'futurists' by today's definition?


----------



## JohnV

KMK said:


> But to the point, then, on what occasions would it be appropriate for a TE to share his views on the timing of Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21?



A TE, or minister of the Word, could possibly share his views on these texts, within his official calling. As long as he was stating them as his own views, not necessitating them or obligating them on anyone. After all, that's what the higher assembly also said when it allowed for the different views, not obligating anyone to any one view. 

There's the matter of a wrongful appeal to authority. His holding an office of Christ's does not elevate his personal view above that of others, even if they do not hold office. A personal view is a personal view, no matter who holds it. It is the higher assembly that will determine, if possible, whether one view is authoritative or not. If the Bible does not clearly state it, then the Bible does not clearly state it. 

It is the minister's place, in such things, to show perhaps by how he arrived at his own views, to encourage great care on such matters, and not to be careless in saying too much. He can use his extra education on such things to great effect, not in resolving the different views, but in encouraging respect for godliness in the discussions around the different views. These discussions also may not resolve the differences, but they will certainly help to discard errors in the differing views that some may hold. And who would not welcome the discarding of error from their own views?


----------



## G.Wetmore

JohnV said:


> A TE, or minister of the Word, could possibly share his views on these texts, within his official calling. As long as he was stating them as his own views, not necessitating them or obligating them on anyone. After all, that's what the higher assembly also said when it allowed for the different views, not obligating anyone to any one view.
> 
> There's the matter of a wrongful appeal to authority. His holding an office of Christ's does not elevate his personal view above that of others, even if they do not hold office. A personal view is a personal view, no matter who holds it. It is the higher assembly that will determine, if possible, whether one view is authoritative or not. If the Bible does not clearly state it, then the Bible does not clearly state it.
> 
> It is the minister's place, in such things, to show perhaps by how he arrived at his own views, to encourage great care on such matters, and not to be careless in saying too much. He can use his extra education on such things to great effect, not in resolving the different views, but in encouraging respect for godliness in the discussions around the different views. These discussions also may not resolve the differences, but they will certainly help to discard errors in the differing views that some may hold. And who would not welcome the discarding of error from their own views?



You have an odd view of presbyterian polity. The confession is meant to guard against false doctrine. If someone is within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy, they have the freedom to preach Scripture. It seems to me that you have functionally elevated the standards from their position as secondary standards, to primary. The pastor is a minister of the Word, and as such he has the right and responsibility for teaching the Word. If he is preaching through a book, for example, and he comes across a eschatological passage, he needs to preach through it, unless for some reason he does not understand it (in which case he probably shouldn't have picked that book). If he has a firm conviction of what the text says, he ought to preach that to his people. If someone preached through a chapter like Matthew 24, and never talked about any eschatalogical subjects, they haven't truly preached the text. They may have written that text down in the bulletin as their supposed sermon text. They may have even read the passage at the beginning of their sermon, but they have not preached the text. Thus what you are proposing would mean the ministers are forbiden from preaching all of Scripture, because the confession does not have doctrinal position on the matter. That is simply mistaken. 

KMK, I would be careful in listening to this advice. 

By the way, KMK, are you preaching through Matthew right now, or something along those lines?


----------



## KMK

JohnV said:


> A TE, or minister of the Word, could possibly share his views on these texts, within his official calling. As long as he was stating them as his own views, not necessitating them or obligating them on anyone. After all, that's what the higher assembly also said when it allowed for the different views, not obligating anyone to any one view.
> 
> There's the matter of a wrongful appeal to authority. His holding an office of Christ's does not elevate his personal view above that of others, even if they do not hold office. A personal view is a personal view, no matter who holds it. It is the higher assembly that will determine, if possible, whether one view is authoritative or not. If the Bible does not clearly state it, then the Bible does not clearly state it.
> 
> It is the minister's place, in such things, to show perhaps by how he arrived at his own views, to encourage great care on such matters, and not to be careless in saying too much. He can use his extra education on such things to great effect, not in resolving the different views, but in encouraging respect for godliness in the discussions around the different views. These discussions also may not resolve the differences, but they will certainly help to discard errors in the differing views that some may hold.



So, in your opinion, it would be inapropriate for a preacher to stand in the pulpit and preach, "The prophecy that Jesus preaches here in Matt 24 has already been fulfilled. We know this to be true because Jesus is directing the prophecy toward those of His generation, and we see from Josephus that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD exactly the way Jesus described it."

But it would *not* be inapropriate for a preacher to stand in the pulpit and preach, "I*n my humble opinion, which is within orthodoxy*, the prophecy that Jesus preaches here in Matt 24 has already been fulfilled. We know this to be true because Jesus is directing the prophecy toward those of His generation, and we see from Josephus that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD exactly the way Jesus described it."

Is that right?



JohnV said:


> And who would not welcome the discarding of error from their own views?



You would be surprised.


----------



## KMK

G.Wetmore said:


> You have an odd view of presbyterian polity. The confession is meant to guard against false doctrine. If someone is within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy, they have the freedom to preach Scripture. It seems to me that you have functionally elevated the standards from their position as secondary standards, to primary. The pastor is a minister of the Word, and as such he has the right and responsibility for teaching the Word. If he is preaching through a book, for example, and he comes across a eschatological passage, he needs to preach through it, unless for some reason he does not understand it (in which case he probably shouldn't have picked that book). If he has a firm conviction of what the text says, he ought to preach that to his people. If someone preached through a chapter like Matthew 24, and never talked about any eschatalogical subjects, they haven't truly preached the text. They may have written that text down in the bulletin as their supposed sermon text. They may have even read the passage at the beginning of their sermon, but they have not preached the text. Thus what you are proposing would mean the ministers are forbiden from preaching all of Scripture, because the confession does not have doctrinal position on the matter. That is simply mistaken.



I think you might be reading too much into John's opinion. What I am hearing John say is that a minister of the Word oversteps if he presents as truth an opinion on which the church has not come to a conclusion.

John said:



> A TE, or minister of the Word, could possibly share his views on these texts, within his official calling. As long as he was stating them as his own views, not necessitating them or obligating them on anyone. After all, that's what the higher assembly also said when it allowed for the different views, not obligating anyone to any one view.



Being a Baptist I have no higher assembly other than the confession I adhere to. But the LBC leaves open to conjecture the date of fulfillment of the prophecies of Matt 24. And this brings me back to my original question. Since the LBC does not prescribe an interpretation of Matt 24, is it appropriate for me (as a preacher) to bring in Josephus, an unispired work, to teach a preterist interpretation? Especially seeing how preterism is not the majority view in church history?



G.Wetmore said:


> By the way, KMK, are you preaching through Matthew right now, or something along those lines?



No, I am in Rom 8. I have my hands full right now with predestination, but I am trying to sort out in my own mind what my escatological views are and also how much bearing those views have on my duty to preach the whole counsel of God.

BTW, your input in this thread has been very helpful to me.


----------



## G.Wetmore

KMK said:


> I think you might be reading too much into John's opinion. What I am hearing John say is that a minister of the Word oversteps if he presents as truth an opinion on which the church has not come to a conclusion.
> 
> John said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a Baptist I have no higher assembly other than the confession I adhere to. But the LBC leaves open to conjecture the date of fulfillment of the prophecies of Matt 24. And this brings me back to my original question. Since the LBC does not prescribe an interpretation of Matt 24, is it appropriate for me (as a preacher) to bring in Josephus, an unispired work, to teach a preterist interpretation? Especially seeing how preterism is not the majority view in church history?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am in Rom 8. I have my hands full right now with predestination, but I am trying to sort out in my own mind what my escatological views are and also how much bearing those views have on my duty to preach the whole counsel of God.
> 
> BTW, your input in this thread has been very helpful to me.



Well the problem is that John is just wrong on the function of the confession and preaching. In one sense the preacher does not have any right to force his hearers to anything. And he has no right to demand that the official members of his church hold to any particular doctrines, besides what is required in their profession of faith, to show basic orthodoxy. The membership of the church is professional, not confessional. It is the officers of the church who suscribe to the confession. The reason why the confession allowed people to hold various eschatological view was for the catholicity of the church. various views are within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy. Therefore, they were allowed to teach and propogate those various positions.

This whole mentality that John is expressing is something that I think is indicative of much of the reformed church. And that is, as I said earlier, that the confession is elevated to a standard that is as high as Scripture. Don't get me wrong, I am a confessionalists, and I go to the most strict subscriptionists seminary in the country, but I clearly hold the confession as subordinate to Scripture. It seems as though he is coming very close to saying the pastor can only preach on the confession. Oh, yes he will use Scripture, but he is not allowed to go outside of the issues dealt with by the confession (not contradict, just say something that the confession doesn't). But this is not how the confession was meant to be used. It is a standard of Orthodoxy, we may not contradict it. It does not limit what the preacher can say or do, because the Minister of the Gospel is not simply the Minister of the confession. He is the mouthpiece of God, in the pulpit, and he speaks what the Scriptures speak. He is not simply the mouthpiece of the confession. Now he ought not to teach contrary to the confession, but he is not limited to the confession. If that were the case, one could reduce the position to obsurdity, because even when I, for example, describe predestination, I am going beyone the language of the confession. I am putting things into my own words. What if the way I phrase something is wrong? If I followed Johns argument I would have have to say here is what the confession says (then read it). And then say, now here is what my opinion is about what the confession means. Now, there is no problem with doing that if you are teaching a sunday school class through the confession, but that is not preaching. We preach through the Scriptures, not the confession. You are preaching through Romans right now, and will be dealing with election. Could you see how ridiculous that position of preaching would look like. You would read your sermon text, and then read the confession text. You would say the confession here is authoritative. Now let me give you my personal unauthoritative interpretation of that.

If I went to a church where the pastor preached like that I would leave.


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> So, in your opinion, it would be inapropriate for a preacher to stand in the pulpit and preach, "The prophecy that Jesus preaches here in Matt 24 has already been fulfilled. We know this to be true because Jesus is directing the prophecy toward those of His generation, and we see from Josephus that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD exactly the way Jesus described it."



I think I also need to disagree with John’s assessment.

It is never inappropriate for a minister of the gospel to declare “thus saith the Lord” if the manner by which they make such statement is a careful, Scripture by Scripture exposition regardless of the subject matter. Just because good Christians may differ on the interpretation of a text or the meaning of a doctrine does not obligate a minister to preface every remark with the banner “personal opinion”. Such a voice is not worth listening to, in my opinion.

Also, it is never appropriate to appeal to any external source (including the Confession) as the final arbiter of sound doctrine. No Confession touches on every aspect of the whole council of God. As Gabe rightly said, they are called ministers of the Gospel, not ministers of the confession. If you cannot make your point from Scripture, then find other work.


----------



## KMK

G.Wetmore said:


> Well the problem is that John is just wrong on the function of the confession and preaching. In one sense the preacher does not have any right to force his hearers to anything. And he has no right to demand that the official members of his church hold to any particular doctrines, besides what is required in their profession of faith, to show basic orthodoxy. The membership of the church is professional, not confessional. It is the officers of the church who suscribe to the confession. The reason why the confession allowed people to hold various eschatological view was for the catholicity of the church. various views are within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy. Therefore, they were allowed to teach and propogate those various positions.
> 
> This whole mentality that John is expressing is something that I think is indicative of much of the reformed church. And that is, as I said earlier, that the confession is elevated to a standard that is as high as Scripture. Don't get me wrong, I am a confessionalists, and I go to the most strict subscriptionists seminary in the country, but I clearly hold the confession as subordinate to Scripture. It seems as though he is coming very close to saying the pastor can only preach on the confession. Oh, yes he will use Scripture, but he is not allowed to go outside of the issues dealt with by the confession (not contradict, just say something that the confession doesn't). But this is not how the confession was meant to be used. It is a standard of Orthodoxy, we may not contradict it. It does not limit what the preacher can say or do, because the Minister of the Gospel is not simply the Minister of the confession. He is the mouthpiece of God, in the pulpit, and he speaks what the Scriptures speak. He is not simply the mouthpiece of the confession. Now he ought not to teach contrary to the confession, but he is not limited to the confession. If that were the case, one could reduce the position to obsurdity, because even when I, for example, describe predestination, I am going beyone the language of the confession. I am putting things into my own words. What if the way I phrase something is wrong? If I followed Johns argument I would have have to say here is what the confession says (then read it). And then say, now here is what my opinion is about what the confession means. Now, there is no problem with doing that if you are teaching a sunday school class through the confession, but that is not preaching. We preach through the Scriptures, not the confession. You are preaching through Romans right now, and will be dealing with election. Could you see how ridiculous that position of preaching would look like. You would read your sermon text, and then read the confession text. You would say the confession here is authoritative. Now let me give you my personal unauthoritative interpretation of that.



I agree that the scenario you describe is ridiculous. I am not sure that is what John is opining. My confusion as to your objection with John's opinion might originate from the fact that I am not a Presbyterian and do not have full understanding of how assemblys and synods and councils work.



G.Wetmore said:


> If I went to a church where the pastor preached like that I would leave.



Would you leave if the preacher taught the *Klinean use of Hittite Suzerainty treates*?

Also, just to clarify, I have great respect for Gentry and for preterism in general. And I think your testimony clears up some things for me.


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> Also, it is never appropriate to appeal to any external source ... as the final arbiter of sound doctrine.



Would this include Josephus? That is the question I am asking. Are the time texts conclusive enough on their own to be the *final arbiter of sound doctrine*?


----------



## G.Wetmore

KMK said:


> I agree that the scenario you describe is ridiculous. I am not sure that is what John is opining. My confusion as to your objection with John's opinion might originate from the fact that I am not a Presbyterian and do not have full understanding of how assemblys and synods and councils work.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you leave if the preacher taught the *Klinean use of Hittite Suzerainty treates*?
> 
> Also, just to clarify, I have great respect for Gentry and for preterism in general. And I think your testimony clears up some things for me.



I wouldn't get up and walk out of the church if I was sitting under a klineian preacher, no. One of my very best friends, goes to Westminster california, and holds to that view. By I would strongly disagree, and I wouldn't attend a church like that. That is, unless it was the only reformed church in the area. 

As to John's view of the use of the confession in the life of the Church, i simply believe that it is not the presbyterian view. You have to remember, and this is not saying anything against anyone on this board. That often times people who aren't trained in a specific field, often have a false view of that field, yet speak about it as though they are an authority. This is not always the case. It is clearly possible that the reverse could be true as well, someone could be trained, but decieved. My whole point in saying this, is that you won't just think because someone like John, who is not a pastor, tells you what a pastor can or cannot say, based upon a false understanding of the function of confessions, you will take it with a grain of salt, and not think, wow this guy really knows ecclesiology. (how was that for a run on sentence  )


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> Would this include Josephus? That is the question I am asking. Are the time texts conclusive enough on their own to be the *final arbiter of sound doctrine*?



"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." (WCF 1:10)

Josephus is not an authoritative arbiter of truth. Neither is Calvin nor the Westminster divines. It is the Scripture alone. The “time texts” need to be properly interpreted and applied within the context of Scripture alone.

The same argument can be used with those who would trot out Irenaeus and Eusebius as arbiters on the date of Revelation as "proof" that it cannot be interpreted within the preterist framework.


----------



## G.Wetmore

tcalbrecht said:


> "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." (WCF 1:10)
> 
> Josephus is not an authoritative arbiter of truth. Neither is Calvin nor the Westminster divines. It is the Scripture alone. The “time texts” need to be properly interpreted and applied within the context of Scripture alone.
> 
> The same argument can be used with those who would trot out Irenaeus and Eusebius as arbiters on the date of Revelation as "proof" that it cannot be interpreted within the preterist framework.


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> The same argument can be used with those who would trot out Irenaeus and Eusebius as arbiters on the date of Revelation as "proof" that it cannot be interpreted within the preterist framework.



But can Irenaeus and Eusebius be *trotted out* as confrimation of internal biblical evidence of a late date of Revelation? (assuming there is such internal evidence)

Is it appropriate for a preacher to elevate the testimony of Josephus above the testimony of Irenaeus and Eusebius and the majority of Historical Theology?


----------



## KMK

G.Wetmore said:


> My whole point in saying this, is that you won't just think because someone like John, who is not a pastor, tells you what a pastor can or cannot say, based upon a false understanding of the function of confessions, you will take it with a grain of salt, and not think, wow this guy really knows ecclesiology.



Well, of course I take John's opinion with a grain of salt. After al,l he is a Presbyterian!


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> But can Irenaeus and Eusebius be *trotted out* as confrimation of internal biblical evidence of a late date of Revelation? (assuming there is such internal evidence)
> 
> Is it appropriate for a preacher to elevate the testimony of Josephus above the testimony of Irenaeus and Eusebius and the majority of Historical Theology?



You appear to keep wanting to go back to assign some sort of quasi-authority to the writings of men to settle a "tie". This approach is fundamentally denied by the Confession. (Although the Confession may be wrong. )

The _best _you can do is to say that it may be _reasonable _to interpret such and such a passage in light of non-authoritative historical statements. But such statements should never be viewed as theological tie-breakers.


----------



## JohnV

Ken:

It's a good idea to take what I say with a grain of salt. Use lots of it. 

But, if I may come to my own defense a bit, I would like to ask:

At what point does a minister's conjectures become the Word of God? 
And where do we find the commandment, the commission from Christ, that men are to fill in the blanks as they see fit, according to their own convictions?

I thought that a minister was a messenger of Christ's, bring His gospel. Since when do messengers add their own things to the message they are sent to deliver? I thought that minister was to be convicted of the whole of the Confessional standard. When did it become that his own convictions could be added onto or inserted into that standard? And where is his commission to do so? Where do we find a text in Scripture that commissions a minister to do that? 

What I find disturbing is that ministers feel it so necessary to also preach the things, to conjecture on things, that the Bible does not reveal. There seems to be the sentiment that to leave out those conjectures is to leave out part of Scripture, as if the Bible is not sufficient on its own in what it reveals. We not only have to have the comfort that God will triumph, and that He already knows how He will triumph, that it is already determined by Him in all His power and might, His foreordaining omniscience, but we now have to also have man's conjectures and predictions as to how this will all work out in order to have the "full" Scripture preached to us. It is not the full gospel until men have added their conjectures to the things that are expressly written down for us, or that are derived from necessity. 

But even more disturbing is that some of these men make these personal convictions to be necessary pre-convictions to other doctrines. For example, I read a book that declared that one could not know the greatness of the Great Commission until one had adopted a Postmillennial view. Not only was Postmillennialism made into a doctrine, but here it has become a prerequisite doctrine to understanding other parts of the Bible that are clearly and expressly stated in the Bible. The Confessions (the witness of the Church as to Scriptural doctrine) does not make Postmillennialism necessary, but this author makes it a prerequisite to understanding the Bible. From a liberty of conscience to a pre-required stance to understand the Bible. 

You are not exempt from this, Ken, because you don't have the same kind of ecclesiastical oversight stucture. You still have your confessional-ecclesiastical standards. You still don't have a special letter from Christ commissioning you to fill in the blanks where you feel it necessary, based upon your own convictions. 

Gabriel and Tom are right about some things. My view of Reformed theological limits is not generally acceptable in modern-day Presbyterianism anymore. I am doing my best to seek a rightful and graceful way out of the Presbyterian church, and back to the continental Reformed. I am not at all breaking my oaths to the Westminster Standards, which I made when I joined a Presbyterian church. I don't see the need for that. What I want to break from is the particular application of them that I found so objectionable, that at the time I made my vows I did not know about. I now understand, but I did not back then. What I vowed to I did not break, and have no wish to break. I find the Westminster Confessional standard to be soundly Reformed, and a good balance to the Three Forms of Unity. I do not find any warrant in them at all for ministers adding their own convictions to the revealed doctrines. Sure, I believe that it is warranted that ministers be convicted of the Confessional standards, and that this is quite necessary to the preaching of the Word; in that sense they should add conviction to the doctrines. But that is not adding anything to the doctrinal standards. I find no warrant, either in the Confessions nor in the Bible that a man is called upon to rely upon his own convictions where the Bible does not reveal things. A minister is a messenger of the gospel, and his own added convictions are not part of that revealed gospel. His office does not allow him to expand the message that he is to preach.


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> The _best _you can do is to say that it may be _reasonable _to interpret such and such a passage in light of non-authoritative historical statements. But such statements should never be viewed as theological tie-breakers.



But is it appropriate to preach a preterist interpretation based solely on the fact that it is *reasonable*? I agree that the preterist interpretation of Matt 24 is *reasonable* but fall short of agreeing it is *necessary* unless you bring in Josephus. For me it has always been Josephus that 'seals the deal' for the preterist interpretation. But does that do injustice to the confession? You say that these extra-biblical sources should not be used as *tie-breakers*. I do not see Josephus as a *tie-breaker* as much as the *capstone* to the preterist interpretation. (I admit that this might be due to my own ignorance and not to any weakness in the preterist interpretation)

The Dispensational says, "Christ's return could occur 'at any moment'". But that is certainly not what Jesus thought. He taught that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies. This did not occur until 66 AD. Therefore when Jesus teaches His disciples to 'watch' in Matt 24, He could not have been teaching them to watch 'because I could come back at any moment'. Yet the Dispensational uses the events of the world to say, "Everything has been fulfilled! The fulness of the Gentiles has come in! The Bible teaches that Jesus could come back at any moment!" But, in fact, that is not what the Bible *teaches*. You may believe that the Lord could come back at any moment but that is not what the Bible *teaches*.

Doesn't the Preterist do the same thing? Doesn't the Preterist say, "The Bible teaches that Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD." Well, actually, that is not what the Bible *teaches*. The preterist teaches that, but the Bible does not.


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> But is it appropriate to preach a preterist interpretation based solely on the fact that it is *reasonable*? I agree that the preterist interpretation of Matt 24 is *reasonable* but fall short of agreeing it is *necessary* unless you bring in Josephus. For me it has always been Josephus that 'seals the deal' for the preterist interpretation. But does that do injustice to the confession? You say that these extra-biblical sources should not be used as *tie-breakers*. I do not see Josephus as a *tie-breaker* as much as the *capstone* to the preterist interpretation. (I admit that this might be due to my own ignorance and not to any weakness in the preterist interpretation)



If it is more reasonable than all other options after surveying all Scripture, I would say “yes”. Unless you are confirmed in the view that you may not say anything about any “doubtful” Scritpure. 

I think you have Josephus overrated, BTW.



KMK said:


> Doesn't the Preterist do the same thing? Doesn't the Preterist say, "The Bible teaches that Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD." Well, actually, that is not what the Bible *teaches*. The preterist teaches that, but the Bible does not.



Actually, I would say that the Bible teaches that Matthew 24 is in large part about what would fall upon “this generation” and then allow the Bible to interpret itself. Even some dispensationalists admit that Matthew 24 had a certain fulfillment to that generation in the 1st century. They get around the implications of this fact to their theology by saying that it also has another fulfillment far in the future.

I never have to mention Josephus.


----------



## tcalbrecht

JohnV said:


> Ken:
> 
> It's a good idea to take what I say with a grain of salt. Use lots of it.
> 
> But, if I may come to my own defense a bit, I would like to ask:
> 
> At what point does a minister's conjectures become the Word of God?
> And where do we find the commandment, the commission from Christ, that men are to fill in the blanks as they see fit, according to their own convictions?
> 
> 
> I thought that a minister was a messenger of Christ's, bring His gospel. Since when do messengers add their own things to the message they are sent to deliver? I thought that minister was to be convicted of the whole of the Confessional standard. When did it become that his own convictions could be added onto or inserted into that standard? And where is his commission to do so? Where do we find a text in Scripture that commissions a minister to do that?



John,

With all due respect, I think you have a very stunted view of the role of the minister of the gospel. You seem to have the idea that since not all portions of Scripture are equally clear (WCF 1:7), that a minister may only preach on only the most clear of all subjects. But Westminster also tells us;



> The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (1:9)



It is the obligation of the minister to seek out the true meaning of all Scripture and present that to his congregation as the whole council of God. The minister may not hide behind the excuse of “it’s not sufficiently clear”.

We all agree that “personal opinion” is not the same as the Word of God, and the minister is, in a very real sense, speaking _verbum Dei _when they take to the pulpit. So they are to be very careful in what they say. They may not turn to such and such a verse and discover the Republican party platform, or the Green Party platform, or some other bit on nonsense. The Bible is not a political platform. But I would not put those examples on the same level as, say, amillennialism vs. postmillennialism. The Bible does have much to say about eschatology, and defining the terms and positions from Scripture is quite appropriate.

But you seem to wish to restrict what a minister may say to what is expressly written in a Confession, and I would argue that is an entirely inadequate task. Much expository preaching would go out the window.




JohnV said:


> Gabriel and Tom are right about some things. My view of Reformed theological limits is not generally acceptable in modern-day Presbyterianism anymore. I am doing my best to seek a rightful and graceful way out of the Presbyterian church, and back to the continental Reformed. I am not at all breaking my oaths to the Westminster Standards, which I made when I joined a Presbyterian church. I don't see the need for that. What I want to break from is the particular application of them that I found so objectionable, that at the time I made my vows I did not know about. I now understand, but I did not back then.



I’m curious as to what you mean by this statement. What advantage does the continental Reformed confessions have over Presbyterian ones in this regard? What haven do you think you find in them?

Is there something in Westminster that requires the abuses you apparently have experienced? Or is it just bad preachers being allowed to act unbiblically?


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> If it is more reasonable than all other options after surveying all Scripture, I would say “yes”.



That answers my question. You would say that the *most reasonable* interpretation, after exhausting all of Scripture, is also the *necessary* interpretation. Therefore, if a preacher is convinced, after surveying all of scripture, knowing that the confession says nothing one way or the other, that the preterist interpretation of Matt 24 is the most reasonable interpretation, then that preacher is obliged to preach it that way. In fact, to gloss over it would be to go against his commission to preach the whole counsel of God. Is that what you are saying?



tcalbrecht said:


> I think you have Josephus overrated, BTW.


 I myself, do not. But unfortunately many to whom I preach do.



tcalbrecht said:


> Actually, I would say that the Bible teaches that Matthew 24 is in large part about what would fall upon “this generation” and then allow the Bible to interpret itself. Even some dispensationalists admit that Matthew 24 had a certain fulfillment to that generation in the 1st century. They get around the implications of this fact to their theology by saying that it also has another fulfillment far in the future.



Agreed.



tcalbrecht said:


> I never have to mention Josephus.



Do you mean you never mention him by name or you never refer to the historical event of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?


----------



## JohnV

tcalbrecht said:


> John,
> 
> With all due respect, I think you have a very stunted view of the role of the minister of the gospel. You seem to have the idea that since not all portions of Scripture are equally clear (WCF 1:7), that a minister may only preach on only the most clear of all subjects. But Westminster also tells us;
> 
> 
> 
> It is the obligation of the minister to seek out the true meaning of all Scripture and present that to his congregation as the whole council of God. The minister may not hide behind the excuse of “it’s not sufficiently clear”.
> 
> We all agree that “personal opinion” is not the same as the Word of God, and the minister is, in a very real sense, speaking _verbum Dei _when they take to the pulpit. So they are to be very careful in what they say. They may not turn to such and such a verse and discover the Republican party platform, or the Green Party platform, or some other bit on nonsense. The Bible is not a political platform. But I would not put those examples on the same level as, say, amillennialism vs. postmillennialism. The Bible does have much to say about eschatology, and defining the terms and positions from Scripture is quite appropriate.
> 
> But you seem to wish to restrict what a minister may say to what is expressly written in a Confession, and I would argue that is an entirely inadequate task. Much expository preaching would go out the window.


You might be misunderstanding me here, but it is more likely that you don't quite understand what it is that I am saying. I'm not putting millennial views on the level of a political agenda. What I'm saying is that, if the Church does not say which view is the right one, then a minister being the deciding factor on the basis of his ordination is an abuse of the office. That's not what the office is for. 

As I said before, I went for years and years to church, listened to many, many sermons, and it was not until I came into the Presbyterian setting that I witnessed a so called 'necessity' for side issues. Which millennial view is a side issue, because the Bible does not tell us which view it right. Witness: the Church has allowed three different views of the millennium. If the Bible was definitively preaching one, or if it was opened up to us by other texts that are clear, then the Church would have said which view is the right one. But she doesn't, because she doesn't know. 

Notice that WCF I, vii tells us that some other text of Scripture might clarify what the one text does not. But the point is that the Bible is clear in one way or another. Well, if the Bible was clear, then why does the Church allow three different, and to some degree mutually exclusive, views of the millennium? Could it be that the Bible does not teach which view is right? And could that possibly be because it is not necessary for us to know which one is right? So why should a minister preach one of the views? What could possibly be his reason? 



> I’m curious as to what you mean by this statement. What advantage does the continental Reformed confessions have over Presbyterian ones in this regard? What haven do you think you find in them?
> 
> Is there something in Westminster that requires the abuses you apparently have experienced? Or is it just bad preachers being allowed to act unbiblically?



In a continental Reformed church there would be no question about this. For a minister to preach a preterist interpretation, or anything that the Bible does not expressly teach in the various forms that we duly derive express teachings, is just not accepted. The Confessions state what is necessary, but certainly not all that is necessary that follows directly from these doctrines. What a minister may preach is what can be determined to be what Christ taught, and no more. He may not suppose that Christ would have taught this or that on his own, because he may not say in Christ's name what Christ did not tell him to say. And when he's speaking on the pulpit he is speaking in Christ's name, from His office which he grants to the Church's leaders. It takes a lot of the minister's own words to explain some things sometime, but that does not mean that he is going beyond Scripture. 

His own convictions of what what the Bible teaches. What we mean by that is all the difference. What you are suggesting is what the Bible's teachings mean to the person, those are the convictions we're talking about. But what I'm saying is the teachings of the Bible, which the minister is fully convicted of, these are the convictions spoken of here. They do not include, but are distinct from, things not expressly taught in Scripture but upon which he has derived his own convictions. I am not disparaging those second convictions, but only saying that the two have to be kept distinct, and that the second class of convictions do not pertain to the office.

No, there is nothing wrong with the Westminster Standards. They too uphold what I am trying, though poorly, to put across here. I find that I do not need to recant my oaths to these standards. In fact, in my Presbyterian church it is these very standards that I am using in my defense, trying to be transferred out. There's nothing wrong with the WS.

I would say that there is a modern tendency in Presbyterianism. If we go back to the example of the Presbyterian author who wrote a study book on how the greatness of the Great Commission was not appreciated or understood until one first adopted a Postmillennial doctrine, then you can see that tendency. No one is saying anything about it. Is it because no one notices what's going on here? I think that this indeed the case. Presbyterians are so used to men adding their own perspectives from the pulpit, without clearly distinguishing perspective from doctrine, and often allowing the confusion to flourish, that no one is noticing that this man has placed something that is supposed to not necessary to a position where it has become a prerequisite: it holds a degree of normativity over doctrines that normally have a higher status. Something that is not certain has a normative control over, a priority to, something that is certain. This is something that is new to the Confession. You won't find justification for that in WCF, I, or anywhere else. 

I'm getting out of the Presbyterian church and going back to the continental church because ministers are freely allowed to add their own personal convictions to those doctrinal convictions when they preach the gospel. There is nothing to stop them from doing that. In the continental Reformed it has never been allowed, and they're not about to change that. In the continental Reformed, where they do not have an expressly state RPW other than the Catechism's explication of the second commandment, they rigorously and rigidly apply a regulatory principle of worship at that point. A minister may preach as gospel what is not expressly or necessarily gospel; he has no mandate for that, and may be held in account for using unwarranted licence.

I think that what the churches need in our day is the preaching of the gospel. They don't need men's agendas. A minister is to be open to being used by the Spirit when he preaches the gospel. We know what the Spirit says to the churches, and the churches themselves bear witness to that through their confessional standard. There is no need to go beyond that, or to insert things that are not sure. Ministers would do well to stick to the mandate of the church that ordained them, and they would do better to stick to the mandate of Christ who sent them.


----------



## G.Wetmore

JohnV said:


> Ken:
> 
> It's a good idea to take what I say with a grain of salt. Use lots of it.
> 
> But, if I may come to my own defense a bit, I would like to ask:
> 
> At what point does a minister's conjectures become the Word of God?
> And where do we find the commandment, the commission from Christ, that men are to fill in the blanks as they see fit, according to their own convictions?
> 
> I thought that a minister was a messenger of Christ's, bring His gospel. Since when do messengers add their own things to the message they are sent to deliver? I thought that minister was to be convicted of the whole of the Confessional standard. When did it become that his own convictions could be added onto or inserted into that standard? And where is his commission to do so? Where do we find a text in Scripture that commissions a minister to do that?
> 
> What I find disturbing is that ministers feel it so necessary to also preach the things, to conjecture on things, that the Bible does not reveal. There seems to be the sentiment that to leave out those conjectures is to leave out part of Scripture, as if the Bible is not sufficient on its own in what it reveals. We not only have to have the comfort that God will triumph, and that He already knows how He will triumph, that it is already determined by Him in all His power and might, His foreordaining omniscience, but we now have to also have man's conjectures and predictions as to how this will all work out in order to have the "full" Scripture preached to us. It is not the full gospel until men have added their conjectures to the things that are expressly written down for us, or that are derived from necessity.
> 
> But even more disturbing is that some of these men make these personal convictions to be necessary pre-convictions to other doctrines. For example, I read a book that declared that one could not know the greatness of the Great Commission until one had adopted a Postmillennial view. Not only was Postmillennialism made into a doctrine, but here it has become a prerequisite doctrine to understanding other parts of the Bible that are clearly and expressly stated in the Bible. The Confessions (the witness of the Church as to Scriptural doctrine) does not make Postmillennialism necessary, but this author makes it a prerequisite to understanding the Bible. From a liberty of conscience to a pre-required stance to understand the Bible.
> 
> You are not exempt from this, Ken, because you don't have the same kind of ecclesiastical oversight stucture. You still have your confessional-ecclesiastical standards. You still don't have a special letter from Christ commissioning you to fill in the blanks where you feel it necessary, based upon your own convictions.
> 
> Gabriel and Tom are right about some things. My view of Reformed theological limits is not generally acceptable in modern-day Presbyterianism anymore. I am doing my best to seek a rightful and graceful way out of the Presbyterian church, and back to the continental Reformed. I am not at all breaking my oaths to the Westminster Standards, which I made when I joined a Presbyterian church. I don't see the need for that. What I want to break from is the particular application of them that I found so objectionable, that at the time I made my vows I did not know about. I now understand, but I did not back then. What I vowed to I did not break, and have no wish to break. I find the Westminster Confessional standard to be soundly Reformed, and a good balance to the Three Forms of Unity. I do not find any warrant in them at all for ministers adding their own convictions to the revealed doctrines. Sure, I believe that it is warranted that ministers be convicted of the Confessional standards, and that this is quite necessary to the preaching of the Word; in that sense they should add conviction to the doctrines. But that is not adding anything to the doctrinal standards. I find no warrant, either in the Confessions nor in the Bible that a man is called upon to rely upon his own convictions where the Bible does not reveal things. A minister is a messenger of the gospel, and his own added convictions are not part of that revealed gospel. His office does not allow him to expand the message that he is to preach.



John V,

You are scaring me, brother. I think that you are very confused about the authority of God's Word, and it's relation to the Church's confession. 

Firstly, let me answer some of your questions

The minister, speaking from the pulpit, speaks with the authority of God in so far as what he speaks conforms to God's Word. Therefore, it in a sense becomes the word of God as it conforms to God's revelation, so that is not on the authority of the one who speaks (the preacher) but based on the authority for whom he speaks (God). j

Men are not allowed to "fill in the blanks" in Scripture. Where God speaks, we must speak, where God ceases to reveal, we must be silent. I think for some reason you don't think God reveals anything about eschatology. We must teach it for the very reason that God has revealed it.

Where you are scaring me is how you relate the confession and Scripture. You seem to think that to speak beyond the confession is to speak beyond Scripture. You functionally equate Scripture and the confession. So that whatever Scripture says, the confession says, and whatever the confession says, Scripture says.
You say:


> I thought that a minister was a messenger of Christ's, bring His gospel. Since when do messengers add their own things to the message they are sent to deliver? I thought that minister was to be convicted of the whole of the Confessional standard. When did it become that his own convictions could be added onto or inserted into that standard? And where is his commission to do so? Where do we find a text in Scripture that commissions a minister to do that?


You are right that a minister is a messenger of Christ, to bring his gospel. So far, so good. Ministers do not have the right to speak as ministers beyond what God reveals, they are to preach sola Scriptura and tota Scripture; so far so good. then all of a sudden you say "I thought that minister was to be convicted of the whole of the Confessional standard. When did it become that his own convictions could be added onto or inserted into that standard?" Where did this come from in your line of reasoning? Somehow preaching all of Scripture becomes equated with all of the confessional standard. You say that ministers can't add to the message that they were sent to preach, but that means they can't go beyond the standards. 

John, the Westminster standards or the 3 forms are not on par with Scripture. They are fallible documents. Let me ask you something; what did people do before those standards were written? When the Scriptures teach that ministers are to preach the gospel, when they are to preach all of the inspired Scriptures, there was no reference to our confessional standards. You can not equate them. 

Our confessions have NO AUTHORITY IN THEMSELVES! All authority which they have has nothing to do with the fact that they are found in the confession, but that they reflect the teaching of Scripture. It is a reflective kind of authority. In so far as they acurately reflect God's Word they are authoritative. 

Speaking beyond the confession should never be equated with speaking beyond the Scriptures. It is certainly the case that someone can speak beyond the confession and Scripture. But they are not to be equated.

You then proceed to say of this view of the confession:


> My view of Reformed theological limits is not generally acceptable in modern-day Presbyterianism anymore



Well John, after hearing what your view of "reformed theologica limits" are, I would have to say that they were never accepted in any kind of Presbyterianism. In fact, they seem to not be reformed at all, and they sound much more like the views expressed by the Roman Catholic church, than any protestant Church. 

think about what you write here:


> I do not find any warrant in them at all for ministers adding their own convictions to the revealed doctrines. Sure, I believe that it is warranted that ministers be convicted of the Confessional standards, and that this is quite necessary to the preaching of the Word; in that sense they should add conviction to the doctrines. But that is not adding anything to the doctrinal standards. I find no warrant, either in the Confessions nor in the Bible that a man is called upon to rely upon his own convictions where the Bible does not reveal things.



to you the "revealed doctrines" are what the confession says. But, my friend the confession is not revelation! You say that the only right of the minister is to add his convictions to the confession because he has no right to add convictions to things which the Bible does not reveal. My friend all I can say is that if anyone ever said anything like this in a presbytery exam, if the presbytery was worth its weight in salt, they would fail him immediately. That is a rejection of Sola Scriptura. It is a view that says Scripture plus confession. In fact I don't even know if it stops there. You are basically saying that confession is Scripture. 

And by the way, I don't know why you think that you would find that in the 3 forms. In fact, the continental tradition does not have as much authority over the minister and the local congregation that the presbyterian tradition. So it seems to me like you are moving in the wrong direction if you want to attend a Church that will bind it's ministers to only speaking what the confession says, and allowing them nothing more than to add their conviction to the confession

As I said in the beginning. You are seriously scaring me with this kind of talk.


----------



## JohnV

Gabriel:

I think what is scaring you is not what I'm saying but what you think I'm saying. As I said, I'm not explaining it very well. 

But I too have been scared of late. I honestly did not know that this type of thing was allowed in Presbyterianism when I first joined. I left the continental Reformed because they had no standards for office. I had no idea at all that I was joining a church that allowed men to mandate their own persuasions as regulatory for doctrine for their congregations. It just never occurred to me to question about that. I assumed that the same standard held for all Reformed churches, that the doctrinal standards were the guiding principles to Biblical theology. It came as a shock to me, and I am continuing to be shocked and amazed. 

First, let's get this out of the way. r.e., The Confessional standard is not on par with the Bible. 

The Confessional standard may not have anything in it that is not fully grounded in the Scriptures. There is no appeal to any other source, but to the Scriptures alone. There can be no doubt but that the Bible teaches what the Confessional standard says it teaches. The Confessional standard may not assert what the Bible does not assert. If it does, if it is not the witness of the Church to what she has always believed, but has added something that is not Biblically grounded, then it ceases to be a witness of the true Church. 

It is not the witness of merely the Presbyterian churches. It is a covenant for the Presbyterian churches, to be sure; it is the bond of common faith that ties all of Presbyterianism together. But it is broader than that. The part of the true Church that accepts the Three Forms of Unity for their covenant of faith does not disagree with the witness to the faith that the Westminster Standards stand for. Nor do those who have adopted the Westminster Standards disagree with the witness to the faith that the Three Forms of Unity stand for. The general consensus is that they bear witness to the same faith. 

Each confessional standard uses their way of saying things: each confines its terminology to the Biblical terminology, and yet explains the same doctrines in different ways. Not different doctrines, but different ways of saying the same things. Ministers do the same thing when they preach. 

There are many things that are not in the Confessions which we find in the Bible. The WCF, for example, does not say that you have to believe that a big fish swallowed Jonah, or that Samson lost his strength when his hair was cut, or that the miracles that Jesus did were real medical miracles. There's a lot of things that are not in the Confessions that are in the Bible. 

The Confessional standard is the credal standard of the Church. As it to say, "This we believe. This we believe the Bible teaches, against all the doctrines that men have thought to raise up instead of the pure gospel." 

It is fully subject to, and derives its authority from, the Bible and the Spirit's witnes through the Church. 

So don't get the idea from that I am advocating that a minister may not preach what is not in the Confessional standards. Of course he may. There are a lot of things that the Bible clearly teaches that are not in the Confessions. What we have been talking about, though, is things that are neither in the Bible nor in the Confessional standards. 

For example, the Church has allowed three different, and to some degree mutually exclusive, views of the millennium. The Bible teaches lots about eschatology, but not enough about the millennium that the Church may determine which of the three the Bible is teaching. The Bible cannot teach all three. Only one can be right. But the Church does not know which one. That's because the Bible does not say. That is what the Church is saying by allowing three views: you have the liberty to hold any one of those three as a personal view. And as long as it does not impose itself upon things that are more clearly revealed, there's nothing wrong with that. To have three vibrant views being discussed in the Church is healthy for godly discussion and upbuilding of the faith. It helps to drive out errors, to refine our theological understandings. But the clear message is that the Bible does not say which one is the right one. 

So though the Bible teaches a great deal about eschatology, the millennium is not the central focus of that teaching. It does not teach which millennial view we ought to believe. 

Because we believe the Bible is perspicuous and sufficient, we must be inclined to accept that which millennial view to believe is not important to salvation, to faith, to life, or to worship. I am not saying that the Bible does not teach about eschatology, but that the Bible is saying that which millennial view we believe is not imortant. If it were important it would tell us what to believe. But it doesn't; and the Church bears witness to that by allowing three different views under liberty of conscience. 

A minister adding his millennial view to what it preached is a breach of that confessional standard. He fails to recognize the difference between liberty of conscience and Bible doctrine. The Bible does not teach a doctrine of the millennium. It is not Bible teaching, and is not Bible doctrine. 

Surely, each of the three views are Biblical in the sense that they derive all the criteria and reasoning from the Bible alone. In that sense all three are equally Biblical. But at best only one can be true. Only one can be Biblical in the sense that only that one is the truth. And yet none of the three are Biblical in the sense that the Bible teaches one of them. 

If the Bible teaches one of the views, then the Church is in deep error by allowing three views. But the Church allows three views in the only way she may, and that is as liberties of conscience. There is no obligation upon anyone for any of the three, but each may be convicted as he is led to believe. Which millennial view to believe is a liberty of conscience, not a doctrinal obligation. That there is or will be some form millennial reign is to be believed by all, for that is doctrinal. But which one to believe is a liberty of conscience. And a liberty of conscience may only be held within the confessional limits, so that it is subordinate to the revealed doctrines in every way.

This liberty of conscience is a pesronal liberty. It has nothing to do with office in the Church. A minister is not sent to proclaim his personal liberties of conscience to his congregation; he is sent to preach the gospel of salvation. And which millennial view to believe is not necessary for salvation or for worship. He has no mandate to settle the matter as to which one to believe. That's the Church's job, not his. He is sent to preach the gospel; that's his calling. 

Now you can apply this to which creation view is to be believed (although there is a difference on that matter), which lapsarian view is to be believed, or which view to believe on a number of other things which are liberties of conscience. They are liberties of conscience because the Bible speaks of them, but does not declare which of the particular views to believe. To the degree that the Bible speaks on them, what it says is to be believed; to the degree that it does not declare what is to believed, man is free to believe within the confines of what is to be believed. 

The Church has accumulated confessional or credal standards all along. As different teachings and opinions arose, the Church has continued to steadfastly bear witness to the original faith. It is not men who have done this, but faithful men led by the Spirit. So there are three things that must be observed in the Confessional standards: first, appeal to Scripture; second, prayer before the deliberations, with thanksgiving afterwards; and third, the blessing of the Spirit. These three are necessary, I believe, to any doctrinal standard for the Church. 

What I mean by doctrinal standard here is that the Church explains to us what the Bible is saying. The Bible is still the standard, the only standard. But where dispute has broken out over how some passage or doctrine is to be understood, the Church has asked for the help of the Spirit, searched the Scriptures carefully, and been led by the Spirit to settle the matter according to Scripture. 

The Confessional standard is such. It is the credal statement of the Church to her membership and to her posterity. That is the authority that they represent. We are not left is a cultural void, but we have the witness of the Church right from the time that the New Testament was written, from the first controversies to the present. To the end that they point solely to Scripture as our only authority, they are our authority. 

So it is with ministers who preach the gospel too. To the end that they point solely to the message of salvation, to right doctrine for faith and life and worship, to the gospel as our only authority for these things, so ministers have the authority of Christ Himself. To the degree that they represent their own personal convictions on matters the Bible does not teach, to that degree they are no more authority than any other man. Just as I, who am not ordained, may not stand on the pulpit proclaiming my own millennial views, so also a minister may not do so either. On millennial views he is no better than any other man, no more authoritative, and has no more right to use the office and the pulpit for that than any other man. The Bible does not teach which millennial view to believe. The witness for this is that the Church has allowed men to hold three different views of the millennium, and as such may only do so in subjection to revealed doctrines, and as liberties of conscience. 

That would be impossible unless it was allowed as a liberty of conscience. The Church does not confess that three different things that are mutually exclusive can be true at the same time. So this is a clear witness to us that holding to one of the three millennial views is a liberty of conscience, not a matter of doctrine. 

So, has that clarified for you what I mean by the Confessional standards? Let me sum up. There is a great deal for a minister to add to his sermons which the Confessional standards do not speak of. They are still in the Bible. And the minister may use the same terminology and explain things differently and to a great deal more detail. He is not departing at all from the doctrinal standards of the Church, the Bible, in doing so. But some things the Bible does not teach, and they are not in the Confessions, although they may personally be held fully within the confines of the doctrinal standards. 


It is our duty to know the difference between things that are liberties of conscience and things that are obligated by the Bible. We need to know the doctrines and their limits. And especially a minister ought to be teaching his congregation the difference. His own example should be an example his congregation may follow. 

The Church has said that three different personal views are allowed, not just one, within the doctrinal limits. The Church is not saying there are three different doctrines on the same matter which are all true; but that the Church does not know which is true because the Bible does not say. All she knows is that the fourth one is not allowed because it denies or goes contrary to other doctrines that are revealed: Dispensational millennial eschatology is not allowed because it does not agree with the Confessional standards. This shows us two limits: first the limit of doctrine as to eschatology, i.e., that which is taught and that which is not taught; and secondly, where even personal liberties of conscience go overboard, where personal views are not held in subjection to revealed doctrines, but rather begin to subject doctrine to them.


----------



## G.Wetmore

JohnV said:


> You might be misunderstanding me here, but it is more likely that you don't quite understand what it is that I am saying. I'm not putting millennial views on the level of a political agenda. What I'm saying is that, if the Church does not say which view is the right one, then a minister being the deciding factor on the basis of his ordination is an abuse of the office. That's not what the office is for.
> 
> As I said before, I went for years and years to church, listened to many, many sermons, and it was not until I came into the Presbyterian setting that I witnessed a so called 'necessity' for side issues. Which millennial view is a side issue, because the Bible does not tell us which view it right. Witness: the Church has allowed three different views of the millennium. If the Bible was definitively preaching one, or if it was opened up to us by other texts that are clear, then the Church would have said which view is the right one. But she doesn't, because she doesn't know.
> 
> Notice that WCF I, vii tells us that some other text of Scripture might clarify what the one text does not. But the point is that the Bible is clear in one way or another. Well, if the Bible was clear, then why does the Church allow three different, and to some degree mutually exclusive, views of the millennium? Could it be that the Bible does not teach which view is right? And could that possibly be because it is not necessary for us to know which one is right? So why should a minister preach one of the views? What could possibly be his reason?
> 
> 
> 
> In a continental Reformed church there would be no question about this. For a minister to preach a preterist interpretation, or anything that the Bible does not expressly teach in the various forms that we duly derive express teachings, is just not accepted. The Confessions state what is necessary, but certainly not all that is necessary that follows directly from these doctrines. What a minister may preach is what can be determined to be what Christ taught, and no more. He may not suppose that Christ would have taught this or that on his own, because he may not say in Christ's name what Christ did not tell him to say. And when he's speaking on the pulpit he is speaking in Christ's name, from His office which he grants to the Church's leaders. It takes a lot of the minister's own words to explain some things sometime, but that does not mean that he is going beyond Scripture.
> 
> His own convictions of what what the Bible teaches. What we mean by that is all the difference. What you are suggesting is what the Bible's teachings mean to the person, those are the convictions we're talking about. But what I'm saying is the teachings of the Bible, which the minister is fully convicted of, these are the convictions spoken of here. They do not include, but are distinct from, things not expressly taught in Scripture but upon which he has derived his own convictions. I am not disparaging those second convictions, but only saying that the two have to be kept distinct, and that the second class of convictions do not pertain to the office.
> 
> No, there is nothing wrong with the Westminster Standards. They too uphold what I am trying, though poorly, to put across here. I find that I do not need to recant my oaths to these standards. In fact, in my Presbyterian church it is these very standards that I am using in my defense, trying to be transferred out. There's nothing wrong with the WS.
> 
> I would say that there is a modern tendency in Presbyterianism. If we go back to the example of the Presbyterian author who wrote a study book on how the greatness of the Great Commission was not appreciated or understood until one first adopted a Postmillennial doctrine, then you can see that tendency. No one is saying anything about it. Is it because no one notices what's going on here? I think that this indeed the case. Presbyterians are so used to men adding their own perspectives from the pulpit, without clearly distinguishing perspective from doctrine, and often allowing the confusion to flourish, that no one is noticing that this man has placed something that is supposed to not necessary to a position where it has become a prerequisite: it holds a degree of normativity over doctrines that normally have a higher status. Something that is not certain has a normative control over, a priority to, something that is certain. This is something that is new to the Confession. You won't find justification for that in WCF, I, or anywhere else.
> 
> I'm getting out of the Presbyterian church and going back to the continental church because ministers are freely allowed to add their own personal convictions to those doctrinal convictions when they preach the gospel. There is nothing to stop them from doing that. In the continental Reformed it has never been allowed, and they're not about to change that. In the continental Reformed, where they do not have an expressly state RPW other than the Catechism's explication of the second commandment, they rigorously and rigidly apply a regulatory principle of worship at that point. A minister may preach as gospel what is not expressly or necessarily gospel; he has no mandate for that, and may be held in account for using unwarranted licence.
> 
> I think that what the churches need in our day is the preaching of the gospel. They don't need men's agendas. A minister is to be open to being used by the Spirit when he preaches the gospel. We know what the Spirit says to the churches, and the churches themselves bear witness to that through their confessional standard. There is no need to go beyond that, or to insert things that are not sure. Ministers would do well to stick to the mandate of the church that ordained them, and they would do better to stick to the mandate of Christ who sent them.



Ok, I think another problem has surfaced. I don't think that you understand, or maybe don't even hold to, the doctrine of the perspecuity of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are clear and knowable, just because of the one who revealed them. God reveals them so that we might know them. This does not mean that everyone will agree on them. No orhtodox Christian would fail to believe that the Bible clearly teaches the diety of Christ, yet some people don't agree. The Bible is clear, because garuantees that it is clear. We can know what Scripture teaches. 



> Deut. 29:29 The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.



The secret things, which God has not chosen to reveal to us belong only to Jehovah. BUT, all of those things that God has revealed are ours, we can know them and we can live by them. 

Premise 1: We can know anything that God has revealed

On to premise 2, It is clear that God has revealed eschatalogical teaching. Think about the book of revelation, and of the many many prophecies concerning the last things. A huge chunck of the Bible speaks teaches eschatological matters.

Premise 2: God has revealed eschatological doctrines


Conclusion: We can know eschatological doctrines.



The reason the confession doesn't talk about eschatology is not because we can't authoritatively know what the Bible says about it. It doesn't speak on eschatology because it is not an essential test of orthodoxy. A man is not disqualified for service in the Church because he is not amill or postmill. When the divines (to speak to the Westminster) sat down to draft the confession the goal was not: let's come up with a list of every fact that we know about Scripture, so that we can make all of our ministers agree with us and teach it. Not at all. They sat down to draft a confession that would simply determine the bounds of orhtodoxy in their pulpits. They allowed diversity on certain issues, not because they thought nobody could know authoritatively, but because they wanted as broad of an orhtodox communion as possible. 

Again, I think there is a problem in your view of the relationship between Scripture and the confession. Following your logic, it seems as if you think that everything that someone could know from the Bible is in the confession. And if it's not in the confession, it can't be known. And if it can't be known, it is mere speculation. And if it is mere speculation, that it ought not be preached from pulpits.

The problem with this line of reasoning is the relationship between the confession and the Bible is flawed.


----------



## G.Wetmore

> The Confessional standard may not have anything in it that is not fully grounded in the Scriptures. There is no appeal to any other source, but to the Scriptures alone. There can be no doubt but that the Bible teaches what the Confessional standard says it teaches. The Confessional standard may not assert what the Bible does not assert. If it does, if it is not the witness of the Church to what she has always believed, but has added something that is not Biblically grounded, then it ceases to be a witness of the true Church.



I know that you keep saying that you don't hold the confession to the same level as Scripture, but then you go and say something like this. The only thing that I can conclude is that you creedally affirm the subordination of the secondary standards (confession) but in actual practice, you make it functionally equivalent.

I don't know how you could make the following statement:


> There can be no doubt but that the Bible teaches what the Confessional standard says it teaches.


Of course there can be doubt! This statement is functionally saying that the confession is infallible! If there can be no doubt, than it is a sure deal. I don't know why you would say that, in fact it is unconfessional. The WCF ch 1 says that creeds are not the supreme judge in controversy. But what your saying is that there is no doubt but that the Scripture says what the confession says it teaches, and therefore the confession could be the final aribiter of truth, because the Bible says whatever the confession says it does.



After reading that I just can't finish your post, at risk of having to do bodily harm to myself by repeatedely running into a wall. I tried to read a little more, and got to where you said that the Bible doesn't teach a millennial view, and just had to stop. I think that it is abundantly clear by opening your Bible to Revelation 20 that it does, and I think it is abundantly clear to everyone else too. They might not all agree on exactly what that view is, but one is taught. Furthermore, in eschatology people use the term millennium (amill, postmill, premill) to describe more than rev 20, but to encompass their entire eschatological system. That is more of a commentary on how we use words than anything else.

I might repost to your confessional ideas, but as far as talking to you about eschatology, I'm done. I think this horse is dead


----------



## JohnV

Okay, Gabriel, I know you've been pulling my leg. After all, we're talking about Reformed here. 

I agree with you on your last statement too. Let's call it a day on this one. I think we've both had our chance at this. I learned my lesson. I need to work on refining a statement on this issue. I know I failed greatly in putting it across rightly. Thanks for trying to sharpen me up on this.


----------



## KMK

Well, thanks for interacting with me on this subject everyone. I have come to this conclusion.

The preterist interprets Matt 24 because the time texts lead him to the conclusion that it is the most reasonable interpretation of those available. (preterists, futurist, historicist, idealist) And because it is the most reasonable, it is therefore necessary. Josephus supports the preterist interpretation, but is not essential to it.

Also, I think it would be wrong for a preterist preacher to say, "The Bible teaches that the prophecy of Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD in the destruction of Jerusalem." Because, in fact, that is not what the Bible teaches. 

I think it would be equally wrong for the futurist preacher to say, "The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ could come back 'at any moment'. Because, in fact, that is not what the Bible teaches.

I am not really sure what the disagreement between the Presbyterians in this thread is all about, but I will chalk that up to my Baptist ignorance.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Not to be 



JohnV said:


> You might be misunderstanding me here, but it is more likely that you don't quite understand what it is that I am saying. I'm not putting millennial views on the level of a political agenda. *What I'm saying is that, if the Church does not say which view is the right one, then a minister being the deciding factor on the basis of his ordination is an abuse of the office. That's not what the office is for.*
> 
> As I said before, I went for years and years to church, listened to many, many sermons, and it was not until I came into the Presbyterian setting that I witnessed a so called 'necessity' for side issues. Which millennial view is a side issue, because the Bible does not tell us which view it right. Witness: the Church has allowed three different views of the millennium. If the Bible was definitively preaching one, or if it was opened up to us by other texts that are clear, then the Church would have said which view is the right one. But she doesn't, because she doesn't know. …
> 
> 
> * In a continental Reformed church there would be no question about this. For a minister to preach a preterist interpretation, or anything that the Bible does not expressly teach in the various forms that we duly derive express teachings, is just not accepted. * The Confessions state what is necessary, but certainly not all that is necessary that follows directly from these doctrines. What a minister may preach is what can be determined to be what Christ taught, and no more. He may not suppose that Christ would have taught this or that on his own, because he may not say in Christ's name what Christ did not tell him to say. And when he's speaking on the pulpit he is speaking in Christ's name, from His office which he grants to the Church's leaders. It takes a lot of the minister's own words to explain some things sometime, but that does not mean that he is going beyond Scripture.



This is a rather puzzling statement based on what I know of continental Reformed confessions and some practice.

Would you agree with me that someone like Kim Riddlebarger would be classified as continental Reformed insofar as he subscribes to the Three Forms being a minister in the URCNA?

That being the case, is he just being inconsistent to affirm (as least in print) that historicist amillennialism is * the* (not “a”) Reformed eschatology? And isn’t it also true that the Three Forms condemns “chiliasm” which would seem to eliminate premillennialism as an option for Three Forms officers? Doesn’t it explicitly say which form is wrong, thus implying which forms may be right?

Am I missing something here?

Sounds like you eschatological options are more limited in the continental churches.


----------



## G.Wetmore

KMK said:


> Well, thanks for interacting with me on this subject everyone. I have come to this conclusion.
> 
> The preterist interprets Matt 24 because the time texts lead him to the conclusion that it is the most reasonable interpretation of those available. (preterists, futurist, historicist, idealist) And because it is the most reasonable, it is therefore necessary. Josephus supports the preterist interpretation, but is not essential to it.
> 
> Also, I think it would be wrong for a preterist preacher to say, "The Bible teaches that the prophecy of Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD in the destruction of Jerusalem." Because, in fact, that is not what the Bible teaches.
> 
> I think it would be equally wrong for the futurist preacher to say, "The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ could come back 'at any moment'. Because, in fact, that is not what the Bible teaches.
> 
> I am not really sure what the disagreement between the Presbyterians in this thread is all about, but I will chalk that up to my Baptist ignorance.



If that is what you want to think the preterist believes, that is fine, but it is fact not what we believe. I don't simply think that is the most reasonable position, as if I am not sure, but. . . . well. . . I think so. No, I believe that the Bible teaches the preterist position, not that it is the most reasonable, rather, it is the Biblical position. Therefore when I am in the pulpit, I have no problem whatsoever in saying thus sayeth the Lord. And then show the actual interpretation of the text (for example matt 24) is that these things were going to happen in their lifetime, and they in fact happened in the destruction of Jerusalem. 

So again, you might not agree, but if you think that preterists hold to their convictions because they are simply the most plausible, then I don't think you truly understand the position.

If I wasn't fully confident in the interpretation I would not teach it. But I do teach it, because I am.

I am not trying to sound arrogant, but simply to help you actually understand the conviction of the orthodox preterist.


----------



## Iconoclast

*temple/70ad*

you saidoesn't the Preterist do the same thing? Doesn't the Preterist say, "The Bible teaches that Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD." Well, actually, that is not what the Bible teaches. The preterist teaches that, but the Bible does not.
I have never been to Jerusalem. Jesus said the temple would be destroyed within a generation,,,,,Believing what Jesus said,I can come to understand that the temple is no longer standing.
If Josephus,,,Fox news,,, or anyone else reports on it as a fact,should I despise it as a non biblical source? 
I do not think the postmill idea's are based on secular records, but rather scripture. They should be debated on it's merits. 
It does not hurt if extra biblical sources are cited to confirm what the theologian proposes,,,if it is used for this purpose.
When a secular archeologist uncovers something,like a hittite city, no one seems to question that as much. Is it not similar?


----------



## KMK

G.Wetmore said:


> So again, you might not agree, but if you think that preterists hold to their convictions because they are simply the most plausible, then I don't think you truly understand the position.



I am not in this to agree or disagree but to fully understand the the preterist position. 

You say that you believe the Bible teaches the preterist position...
You say that when you are in the pulpit you have no trouble saying 'Thus saith the Lord'...


G.Wetmore said:


> And then show the actual interpretation of the text (for example matt 24) is that these things were going to happen in their lifetime, *and they in fact happened in the destruction of Jerusalem.*



But, in fact the Bible does not teach that the fulfillment happened in the destruction of Jerusalem. However, Josephus et al mentions the destruction of Jerusalem.

Therefore the preterist uses Josephus to interpret the time texts of Matt 24 and does not see this as a conflict with WCF chapter 1.


----------



## KMK

Iconoclast said:


> you saidoesn't the Preterist do the same thing? Doesn't the Preterist say, "The Bible teaches that Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD." Well, actually, that is not what the Bible teaches. The preterist teaches that, but the Bible does not.
> I have never been to Jerusalem. Jesus said the temple would be destroyed within a generation,,,,,Believing what Jesus said,I can come to understand that the temple is no longer standing.
> If Josephus,,,Fox news,,, or anyone else reports on it as a fact,should I despise it as a non biblical source?
> I do not think the postmill idea's are based on secular records, but rather scripture. They should be debated on it's merits.
> It does not hurt if extra biblical sources are cited to confirm what the theologian proposes,,,if it is used for this purpose.
> When a secular archeologist uncovers something,like a hittite city, no one seems to question that as much. Is it not similar?



The scenarios you propose, if I understand them, seem to be more about apologetics than doctrine. 

Also, are you saying that preterism and postmilleniumism (is that even a word?) are one and the same?


----------



## Iconoclast

,,Ken, If postmillenial writers are correct, and they work through MT.24,and Lk 21,, applying it to the fall of Jerusalem, then why would you take issue with the results. 
Most amillennial writers seem to agree that the events of 70ad. were clearly spoken of and fulfilled.
you asked;The scenarios you propose, if I understand them, seem to be more about apologetics than doctrine. 

Also, are you saying that preterism and postmilleniumism (is that even a word?) are one and the same?
__________________
I am saying that if they [postmill,,partial preterists ] are correct in how they explain these chapters,,,the discussion should be more on what parts of scripture are yet to be fulfilled,and what is our role in this physical world now.
Is the gospel going to overcome the evil,,,or as the Amill writers teach that although we always truimph in Christ,,dark days of gloom and apostasy lurk on the horizon.
I think the discussion moves beyond Josephus.
The doctrine impacts us everyday. Your view of it affects almost every area of your christian life. Until recently I think amillennial believers have been very quiet on these issues. They can easily refute the dispensational ideas, but it seems to me that some of the current writers[Gentry, Demar, Matthison] raise substantial scriptural challenges.
Professor David Engelsma is one of the few men I have seen in print that seem up to the challenge of working through these writings verse by verse. 
I guess that is what I am trying to get across. Have you read much on these writers? If you have I do not think that you would say that they shrink back from offering scriptural proof of their positions.


----------



## KMK

Iconoclast said:


> ,,Ken, If postmillenial writers are correct, and they work through MT.24,and Lk 21,, applying it to the fall of Jerusalem, then why would you take issue with the results.
> Most amillennial writers seem to agree that the events of 70ad. were clearly spoken of and fulfilled.
> you asked;The scenarios you propose, if I understand them, seem to be more about apologetics than doctrine.
> 
> Also, are you saying that preterism and postmilleniumism (is that even a word?) are one and the same?
> __________________
> I am saying that if they [postmill,,partial preterists ] are correct in how they explain these chapters,,,the discussion should be more on what parts of scripture are yet to be fulfilled,and what is our role in this physical world now.
> Is the gospel going to overcome the evil,,,or as the Amill writers teach that although we always truimph in Christ,,dark days of gloom and apostasy lurk on the horizon.
> I think the discussion moves beyond Josephus.
> The doctrine impacts us everyday. Your view of it affects almost every area of your christian life. Until recently I think amillennial believers have been very quiet on these issues. They can easily refute the dispensational ideas, but it seems to me that some of the current writers[Gentry, Demar, Matthison] raise substantial scriptural challenges.
> Professor David Engelsma is one of the few men I have seen in print that seem up to the challenge of working through these writings verse by verse.
> I guess that is what I am trying to get across. Have you read much on these writers? If you have I do not think that you would say that they shrink back from offering scriptural proof of their positions.



This has been a long thread, and I am not sure if you have read all of the posts and I can understand why. (My Presbyterian brothers can get a little wordy  ) But I have stated over and over that I am not arguing against preterism. I myself lean toward a preterist interpretation of Matt 24. I came to preterism like most people, through the writings and sermons of DeMar and Gentry.

My concern is with what you just wrote:



Iconoclast said:


> The doctrine impacts us everyday. Your view of it affects almost every area of your christian life.



If this is true, then my question is, does the preterist interpretation rely on Josephus to the point that it undermines the 'scripture interprets scripture' principle as it is contained in WCF chapter 1?

Is it a problem when a preacher stands in the pulpit and says, "Thus saith the Lord! The Bible teaches that the prophecy of Matt 24 was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD." Because the Bible simply does not teach that. The Bible teaches that the prophecy would be fulfilled within that generation. The prophecy speaks of the destruction of the Temple. The prophecy speaks of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. But the only reason the preterist believes that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Army in 70 AD was indeed that event is because of extra-biblical sources.

All I am asking is... Is that apporpriate for the establishment of, as you say, a doctrine that impacts us everyday. Your view of it affects almost every area of your christian life."?


----------



## G.Wetmore

Ken,

I think one of the biggest problems in this discussion is that you have not sat down to think about how you are using words like hermeneutic, interpretation, fulfillment and evidence. As I have already said, preterism is not a hermeneutic it is an interpretation. Furthermore, the preterist does not use Josephus as an interpreter, Josephus is not the basis for the interpretation, he is merely evidence. 

Furthermore, I don't know why you think that a preterist would say that Jesus taught that the temple was going to be destroyed in a.d. 70. A preterist would say that Jesus prophecied that the temple was going to be destroyed. They would then say that prophecy was fulfilled in a.d. 70. 

This is no way undermines the hermeneutic set forth in the WCF.


----------



## tcalbrecht

I wish to point out that a non-preterist such as Kim Riddlebarger can have a preterist interpretation of certain texts. For example, Kim has written:



> I have written on this matter in my book A Case for Amillennialism. Here is a section which deals with your question (taken from pages 168-173)
> 
> In verse 15 of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus answers the disciple’s original question about the destruction of the temple, “when will these things happen?” When will the temple be destroyed? Jesus now speaks of a period of great tribulation unsurpassed throughout the history of Israel. Dispensational writers argue that this passage must be interpreted in light of Daniel 9:27, which is assigned to a future seven-year tribulation period. If true, Jesus is here speaking of some distant future event yet to come. According to John Walvoord, “Christ was not talking here about fulfillment in the first century, but prophecy to be related to His actual second coming to the earth in the future.”
> 
> *But there are good reasons to think that Jesus is speaking about the events of A.D. 70.* Recall that the disciples’ questions are prompted by Jesus’ comments about Israel’s coming desolation and the destruction of the temple. That this is Jesus’ answer to the disciple’s question about the destruction of the temple is clear from the parallel passage in Luke 21:20, where Luke writes “so when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you know that its desolation is near.” Roman military action associated with the destruction of the city and the desolation of the temple are clearly linked. Add to this the fact that Jesus switches subjects from the preaching of the gospel to all the nations to the frightening prophecy of an abomination which will render the temple “desolate.” *As D. A. Carson points out, the details of what follows are too limited “geographically and culturally” to extend this beyond A.D. 70. * It is very clear, therefore, that Jesus is describing what lies just ahead for Israel, desolation, and for the temple, its destruction. And what he has to say is not good news.
> 
> In verse 15, Jesus now evokes a theme drawn directly from Daniel 11:31 and 12:11, which speaks of an idolatrous image which will be set up on the altar of the temple, at the time of the destruction of the city. It is this abominable image which thereby renders the temple “desolate.” The abomination of desolation is a Greek transposition of a Hebrew word and conveys an idea of something being detestable to God. It is frequently used in reference to pagan gods and the articles used in connection with the worship of them. As Cranfield points out,
> 
> The significance of the Hebrew participle is that the abominable thing causes the temple to be deserted, the pious avoiding the temple on its account. Daniel 12:11 appears to be fulfilled in part when Antiochus Ephiphanes set up a heathen altar in the temple in 168 BC. Jesus' use of the phrase implies that for Him the meaning of the prophecy was not exhausted by the events of Maccabean times; it still had a future reference. The temple of God must yet suffer a fearful profanation by which its whole glory will perish.
> Says Jesus, “so when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel,” not only is the desolation of the temple associated with the messianic prophecy of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 in view, but so is Israel’s not too distant past, when in 163 BC, Antiochus Ephiphanes profaned the temple during the Maccabean wars by erecting a pagan statue in the Holy of Holies. Every Jew knew this story. They also knew what such an abomination entailed: the temple would be rendered “unclean.” This is the image that Jesus evokes to characterize what will happen to the temple yet again, only this time so as to make the profanation of the temple by Antiochus pale by comparison.
> 
> When Jesus evokes images from the prophecies from Daniel 9, 11 and 12, in effect, he now claims to be the true interpreter of Daniel’s mysterious vision, and that the prophecies of Daniel about an abomination extend into the future, and were not fulfilled by the events of 163 BC. When you see this abomination standing in the temple rendering it unclean, Jesus warns his disciples “let the reader understand.” This is, no doubt a reference back to chapter 8 of Daniel’s prophecy, in which Daniel was struggling to understand the meaning of the vision about the time of the end. Therefore, by uttering these words, “let the reader understand,” Jesus is saying that he will explain the mysteries which Daniel struggled to explain, but was never able to fully comprehend. This also means that the desolation of the temple by Antiochus is but a foreshadowing of another desolation yet to come which fulfills Daniel’s prophecy of the desolation of the temple, a desolation which will be far more horrific and which foreshadows the coming destruction of the city of Jerusalem. This was every pious Jew’s greatest fear–the temple would become desolate once again and the people of Israel would be hauled off into captivity, to suffer and die in a land not their own. This is exactly what Jesus predicts.
> 
> *But Jesus not only warns of a desecration of the temple, he warns of a great calamity to come upon the entire nation–a calamity which, by the way, comes to pass when the temple is desecrated. * When you see this happen, says Jesus in verse 16, “then,” that is, at the time you see the abomination in the temple, “let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” The moment the temple is profaned, it is time to go! The apostolic church remembered these words of our Lord, and when it became clear that Rome was going to use great force to put down the ever-growing Jewish rebellion in the latter part of A. D. 66-67, those Christians remaining in Jerusalem did indeed begin to relocate to the hill country to the northeast in the Transjordan, the same place where the Jews hid safely during the Maccabean wars.
> 
> In fact, this crisis will come to pass so quickly and the consequences will be so great that Jesus warns his disciples, “let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.” We hear the echo in these words of the warning given to Lot, when Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed–don’t look back. But there are cultural reasons for these words as well. Jewish dwellings of the first century were often built so that they utilized the roof area as a kind of porch. If the abomination occurs when you are on your roof relaxing, don’t go down into the house to pack. Flee! Don’t even stop to pick up clothing! Things will be so dreadful that women who are pregnant, or who have small children, will have an especially difficult time. The disciples are even exhorted to pray that this will not happen during bad weather–during the winter–or on the Sabbath, when the Sabbath observance of many Jewish Christians would make travel very difficult.
> 
> Riddleblog



I think this quote underscores Gabriel's comment that "preterism is not a hermeneutic it is an interpretation".

Dr. Riddlebarger would probably agree with the notion that these judgment passages against national Israel must have been fulfilled in that generation because of his overall understanding of God's justice and mercy, e.g., that judgment does not extend beyond "the third and forth generation" (Exo. 20:5). This is one reason why he would reject the futurist (dispensationalist) view of a judgment yet to come upon national Israel.

The Reformed (orthodox) preterist and non-preterist use the same hermeneutics to approach the Scripture. We may differ on the conclusion of interpretation for particular texts, but the means to get there should be essentially the same.


----------



## G.Wetmore

tcalbrecht said:


> I wish to point out that a non-preterist such as Kim Riddlebarger can have a preterist interpretation of certain texts. For example, Kim has written:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this quote underscores Gabriel's comment that "preterism is not a hermeneutic it is an interpretation".
> 
> Dr. Riddlebarger would probably agree with the notion that these judgment passages against national Israel must have been fulfilled in that generation because of his overall understanding of God's justice and mercy, e.g., that judgment does not extend beyond "the third and forth generation" (Exo. 20:5). This is one reason why he would reject the futurist (dispensationalist) view of a judgment yet to come upon national Israel.
> 
> The Reformed (orthodox) preterist and non-preterist use the same hermeneutics to approach the Scripture. We may differ on the conclusion of interpretation for particular texts, but the means to get there should be essentially the same.


 

That is the reason why I originally looked at this thread. The title "The Preterist Hermeneutic" was strange. I never have thought that a preterist had a different hermeneutic than anyone else. I think a major issue in theological discussions today is the use and misuse of theological terms. I think that this is clearly evident in this discussion, in it's relation to the hermeneutic set forth in the Westminster Standards. We must first understand a position, and how they are using their theological language. Then we can evaluate that position on Biblical grounds. But if we are both using different theological vocabulary, there is bound to be disagreement. 

Not only is the term "hermeneutic" misapplied in this discussion, a particular problem is the confusion between interpretation and fulfillment. One cannot give a true interpretation of these text that says Jesus taught that these prophecies would be fulfilled in a.d. 70. He simply taught that they would be fulfilled in that generation. But they were in fact fulfilled in a.d. 70. This has nothing to do with interpretation, but simply historical fulfillment. This distinction has been confused, and has given rise to the belief that preterism is a distinct hermenuetic relying on extra biblical sources to establish it's interpretation.


----------

