Question about eschatological positions

[Fogetaboutit]

I was wondering if somebody could help me understand what are the main differences beteween partial praeterism and full praeterism. From my understanding the only difference is the timing of the second coming of Christ is that correct?

I was also wondering if any early church father ever formulated something simillar to what is now know as praeterism before Alcazar (a Jesuit Priest) expounded this theory? The only eschatological views I know existed prior to the reformation (and counter reformation) is chiliasm (which from my understanding would be somewhat simillar to historic premil) and Amillianism (Simillar to what is now known as Historic Amillianism). Am I correct?

And my last question would be concerning the simillarities between postmill and premill. It seems that both views are looking for a "Golden Age" of political reign of Christ on earth (Postmill without Christ bodily present and Premill with Christ bodily present). From my understanding the Kingdom of God (Reign of Christ on Earth) is not political but spiritual. That is one of the reasons the Jews did not recognize their Messiah because they were expecting a political reign (or earthly/carnal kingdom). Would that not be comitting the same error by expecting a political "Golden Age" reign of Christ?

As you probably guess I believe Historic Amil make the most sense I just want to make sure I'm not overlooking something regarding praeterism and postmillinianism since I know many reformed men seem to cling to those views. I apologize if this has already been discussed, if so could you point me to the thread?

Thanks,

 

[Skyler]

There were heretics who claimed that Christ had already come and the resurrection was past (which would be full preterism). They even crop up in the Bible. (2 Tim 2:18)

 

[Southern Twang]

I think it's too narrow to confine postmillennialism to merely a political expectation. The world wide dominance of the gospel in the hearts of men and women is more like it. And of course that will have real political, economical, and societal effects.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Most of the critiques of Post-Millennialism often get the argument backwards. As Dewey D notes the expectations of Biblical political, economic, and societal evolution are a consequence thereof not a mode of creating widespread Gospel confession.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Well I guess my question is what composes is the kingdom of God (Christ reign) in the eyes of postmils? Is it physical, spiritual or a mix of both?

If the thousand years of Revelation 20 is to be considered as symbolic, where does the belief of a "Golden Age" comes from?

Maybe it's just me but Postmill seem to be a view that tries to reconcille Amillianism with chiliasm/premil.

How would the parable of the binding of the strong man in Matthew 12:24-29 be reconciled with this view? Jesus seem to implied that he is the one who bound the strong man (Satan) to spoil his good (deliver his sheeps from the grip of sin/Satan). He was speaking in the present tense.

Matthew 12:28-30

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad


So if the thousand year only start with this "golden age" will Satan only be bound when this "Golden Age" start since the binding of Satan and the "thousand year" seem to be related according to Revelation 20? Will there be 2 different binding and releasing of Satan?

 

[Phil D.]

Personally, I've never been able to square Post-millennialism with New Testament passages like Luke 13:22-24 and (especially) Matthew 7:13-14.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Both of the "narrow" passages are fairly easily answered in the Post-Millenial scheme (read Keith Mathison's book "Post-Millenialism" for the best recent treatment).

1) The "Narrow" gate refers to the exclusivity of Christ.

2) The context of the passage deals with the state of affairs as they existed in his time among the Jews. It does not speak to the ultimate "number" of believers at the end of time.

3) Nothing in the text says this will be a permanent state of affairs.

 

[Peairtach]

I was wondering if somebody could help me understand what are the main differences beteween partial praeterism and full praeterism. From my understanding the only difference is the timing of the second coming of Christ is that correct?

Full preterism or hyper-preterism is a full-blown heresy that states that the Second Advent, the resurrection, the day of judgment are past in AD 70.

Preterism or partial preterism or orthodox preterism is not heretical. Some orthodox preterists are more preterist than others. E.g. Gentry says that Babylon is first century Jerusalem, Bahnsen said that it was Rome, and although I lean towards preterism in some ways, I tend to believe that Babylon is the corrupt Church.

From my understanding the Kingdom of God (Reign of Christ on Earth) is not political but spiritual.

In postmil, the political changes and other changes are produced by Christ reigning from Heaven and sending forth His Holy Spirit, working through His Word and His Church and working through His providence. So the transformation of the world is fundamentally spiritual.

Not all postmils agree on theonomy, although all would like to see every area of life be Christianised in the way that they believe is biblical.

And my last question would be concerning the simillarities between postmill and premill. It seems that both views are looking for a "Golden Age" of political reign of Christ on earth (Postmill without Christ bodily present and Premill with Christ bodily present). From my understanding the Kingdom of God (Reign of Christ on Earth) is not political but spiritual. That is one of the reasons the Jews did not recognize their Messiah because they were expecting a political reign (or earthly/carnal kingdom). Would that not be comitting the same error by expecting a political "Golden Age" reign of Christ?

The main error of the premils is that they forget that Christ has been hyper-exalted, that He has all power in Heaven and Earth and that He said to the disciples that they should be happy that He was going to the Father:

You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28, ESV)

They also forget that Christ's state of humiliation is at an end.

The Golden Age will be more of a Silver Age because there will still be sin, death and suffering, although alleviated by modern medicine revealed to Man by God. But it would be nice to think that most (or all) Christians will enjoy the freedoms and prosperity and peace that many of us already enjoy in measure.

The First Beast of statist and pagan persecution will be destroyed. The Second Beast of ecclesiastical heresy will be overthrown. The Babylon of a heretical and corrupt Church will be reformed.

It's a very slow and gradual process in history and in the world - like leaven going through three measures of meal.

 

[Phil D.]

Both of the "narrow" passages are fairly easily answered in the Post-Millenial scheme (read Keith Mathison's book "Post-Millenialism" for the best recent treatment).

1) The "Narrow" gate refers to the exclusivity of Christ.

2) The context of the passage deals with the state of affairs as they existed in his time among the Jews. It does not speak to the ultimate "number" of believers at the end of time.

3) Nothing in the text says this will be a permanent state of affairs.

1. Obviously.
2. I see this as a plausible explanation for the passage in Luke.
3. In Matthew 7 Jesus makes a clear statement of fact, which I don't see warrant to arbitrarily segment into supposed parcels of time (as opposed to simply taking it to be a "general" or "universal" truth). Moreover, I think history has always borne, and yet continues to bear out the face-value of this saying.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Preterism or partial preterism or orthodox preterism is not heretical. Some orthodox preterists are more preterist than others. E.g. Gentry says that Babylon is first century Jerusalem, Bahnsen said that it was Rome, and although I lean towards preterism in some ways, I tend to believe that Babylon is the corrupt Church.

If you believe that the corrupt church is Babylon wouldn't that be Historism instead of praeterism. This was why I was asking the question about the difference between full and partial praeterism. By looking at the different view held by professed praeterist it seemed to me that partial praeterist are trying to mix (to different extent) praeterism and historicism since "classic" (or full or Hyper) praeterism is a clear heresy. The closer you get to full praeterism the more heretical you sound.

Historicist would also agree that some things have already been fullfilled since they believe that the prophecy concerning the end time extend during the entire "Church Era". That does not mean they are partial praeterist, this is just classical historicism.

 

[Peairtach]

If you believe that the corrupt church is Babylon wouldn't that be Historism instead of praeterism.

Well maybe partially historicist. But I believe that Revelation was written in the AD 60s and that the seals and trumpets are about the destruction of Jerusalem, although also pointing to the end of the World.

I believe that statist, pagan, persecutory forces are represented by Nero in Revelation (666/616), but they are not finished with his demise but will be finished at a point in the future. We still have these problems in the World so this Beast hasn't been slain yet. (Revelation 19)

I believe that ecclesiastical error and compromise is represented by the "Beast from the Earth"/False Prophet, but that that is still with us, and will be dealt with in history at a point in the future. This Beast/False Prophet hasn't been slain yet either (Revelation 19)

Babylon/the Whore is the Woman (the Church) who has been corrupted by the work of these two "Beasts".

The Bowls are partly about God dealing with these two Beasts and the Whore in history.

But she comes out good at a point in history as the Bride/the New Jerusalem.

I hold this position on Revelation with a pinch of salt, since it is a difficult book.

since "classic" (or full or Hyper) praeterism is a clear heresy.

I don't think it is classic but largely novel, although there may have been some full preterists in the past.

You'll find ("partial") preterist elements in commentaries by people like Thomas Scott, and other traditional Reformed commentaries.

You'd have to abuse Scripture and general revelation, to find the literal, visible and physical Second Advent, the General Resurrection of the righteous and the wicked, the Last judgment, the New Heavens and the New Earth, etc, in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Historicists and idealists also say that some of Revelation is past/has commenced. Sometimes they don't make too much of AD 70, especially if they believe that Revelation was written in the 90s.

I think some (Partial) Preterists - like Gentry - are sometimes trying to squeeze too much into the first century.

Revelation 6 to 19 is being used like a squeeze-box.

Some preterists squeeze it all into the first century.

Futurists squeeze it all into the future.

Historicists open it up along all history previous to us.

Idealists want to say that they're not committed to any timeline and try to avoid the squeeze-box hermeneutic, with partial success.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

So I guess coming back to my original questions, was there any "orthodox" early church father who formulated something simillar to what is now known as praeterism before Alcazar expounded this therory? If not would that not just be taking a heresy and trying to make it acceptable?

I know truth is not determined by commentators an only by scripture, but from my knowledge what is call "orthodox" praeterism is just a modification the heritical "praterism" expounded by Alcazar. Therefore "orthodox" praeterism would actually be full praeterism (as originaly expounded by Alcazar) and what is now known as partial praeterism would actually be "unorthodox" praeterism since it is a modification of the former and not the other way around.

Also if Nero is the final Antichrist how does the Papacy fit in this? The fall of Pagan Rome is not necessarily the end of Rome as prophesied by Daniel in my view, this could be explained by the toes of clay. The Pope actually still hold the title Pontifex Maximus which was the title of the Emperors of Pagan Rome. Plus the Papacy (as whole) probably persecuted more saints that all of the Roman Emperors combined.

 

[Peairtach]

So I guess coming back to my original questions, was there any "orthodox" early church father who formulated something simillar to what is now known as praeterism before Alcazar expounded this therory? If not would that not just be taking a heresy and trying to make it acceptable?

I know truth is not determined by commentators an only by scripture, but from my knowledge what is call "orthodox" praeterism is just a modification the heritical "praterism" expounded by Alcazar. Therefore "orthodox" praeterism would actually be full praeterism (as originaly expounded by Alcazar) and what is now known as partial praeterism would actually be "unorthodox" praeterism since it is a modification of the former and not the other way around.

I don't know the history of preterism - or futurism, historicism or idealism. Truth isn't determined by the commentator that first expounds a view. You have to examine the Scriptures and think about what accords best with them.

Also if Nero is the final Antichrist how does the Papacy fit in this?

Nero isn't the "final antichrist" according to what I believe. He's the Beast, and representative of statist and pagan persecution of Christianity down the centuries through the conversion of Constantine - which looked hopeful (Rev 13:3) - the fall of Rome, the development and rise of Western Civilisation.

The second "Beast from the Earth"/False Prophet represents ecclesiastical compromise with the world that lies in the wicked one and heresy. The Papacy as Antichrist would be included in this, along with other antichrists like Liberal Theology, Mormonism, JWs, and other false teachings and systems that claim to be Christian and to worship Christ but set up a false idol in His place, an antichrist.

But this kind of thing was already started in the first century e.g. Christian Gnosticism, that the Apostle John mentions in his letters.

There is a list of early church preterism on this page:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/w/warfield-benjamin.html

But this site is, apart from anything else, is very user unfriendly and messy, and they include hyper-preterist material but disclaim it.

I think there's also a danger among the orthodox who study Revelation to fall into camps, as illustrated by a website devoted to preterism. Revelation 6-19 may indeed be interpreted with preterist, historicist, idealist and futurist aspects. Some of it may be past, some going on now, some going to happen in the future, and all of it relevant to the Christian irrespective of whether or what era it should be associated with.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I don't know the history of preterism - or futurism, historicism or idealism. Truth isn't determined by the commentator that first expounds a view. You have to examine the Scriptures and think about what accords best with them.

I completely agree with this but I was only pointing out that from my knowledge Praeterism, and futurism for that matter, have been developped by Jesuit priest as part of the counter reformation to try to get the heat of the Papacy.

Francisco Ribera and Robert Bellarmine formulated futurism

Francisco Ribera ~ Apocalypsin Commentarii 1602 edition - READ ONLINE

Luis de Alcazar formulated praeterism

Presterism

Scripture should definitely be our final authority but it's alway good to verify the source and motive of the theory before we accept it as truth since it can be easy to read scripture through the lens of our preconcieved ideas. Once a theory is accepted it can be hard to look at scripture without the lens of that theory.

I do not pretend to have all the answers but I will definitely have my guard up when a theory comes from the pen of a Jesuit, that is why I was wondering if anybody came up with this interpretation before Alcazar.

Nero isn't the "final antichrist" according to what I believe. He's the Beast, and representative of statist and pagan persecution of Christianity down the centuries through the conversion of Constantine - which looked hopeful (Rev 13:3) - the fall of Rome, the development and rise of Western Civilisation.

From my understanding the use of a Beast in prophesies mostly refers to "empires" or "wordly realm of authority" and not to individual. In the book of Daniel the 4 Pagan empires are refered as Beasts.

Horns can be interpreted as "Kings" or "Kingdoms"

ie: 2 horns of the Ram in Daniel representing the kings or kingdoms of Media and Persia being conquered by the He Goat with 1 horn representing the King of Greece ( Ram and Goat are "Beast" representing "empires" and horns reprenting "Kings" or "Kingdom" who rule this empire)

From my understanding the Beast of Revelation is the Global world system/empire which the apostate church (Babylon Rome and it's daughters) Rides.

I would agree with your interpretation of the beast of the earth/False Prophet being the Ecuminical Church movement (ecclisiatical compromise as you put it). The realm of authority of this beast is the Church/False church, which would explain that it looks like a lamb but speak as a dragon and make the member of the apostate church worship the first beast (the world system)

 

[Peairtach]

Scripture should definitely be our final authority but it's alway good to verify the source and motive of the theory before we accept it as truth since it can be easy to read scripture through the lens of our preconcieved ideas. Once a theory is accepted it can be hard to look at scripture without the lens of that theory.

I do not pretend to have all the answers but I will definitely have my guard up when a theory comes from the pen of a Jesuit, that is why I was wondering if anybody came up with this interpretation before Alcazar.

I see preterism as answering a lot of Qs with regard to the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. But one people look upon themselves as "preterists" and discount the other perspectives they may end up pushing the squeeze-box of Revelation 6-19 too far in the preterist direction.

Re Alcasar, I would study that list of early Church preterists to see how much of what he was saying was new. There may be quite a lot of preterist-thinking before him. I'll get round to checking out the history myself.

Re getting the Papacy off the hook, that depends on how far you push the preterism. On Bahnsen's and Gentry's schemes of Revelation, the Papacy doesn't get a look in. But are they the last word in preterist- thinking.

James Madison MacDonald's "Key to the Apocalypse" is highly recommended in Charles Hodge's "Systematic Theology" in the section on eschatology. He is preterist but believes that Babylon is the apostate Church. In his scheme apostate Jerusalem and Judaism is the first enemy of Christianity, then the Roman Empire, then the Roman Church.

Amazon.com: james madison macdonald: Books

I find his general approach to Revelation more balanced than Gentry or Bahnsen, and Dr Hodge also liked him.

From my understanding the use of a Beast in prophesies mostly refers to "empires" or "wordly realm of authority" and not to individual. In the book of Daniel the 4 Pagan empires are refered as Beasts.

Horns can be interpreted as "Kings" or "Kingdoms"

ie: 2 horns of the Ram in Daniel representing the kings or kingdoms of Media and Persia being conquered by the He Goat with 1 horn representing the King of Greece ( Ram and Goat are "Beast" representing "empires" and horns reprenting "Kings" or "Kingdom" who rule this empire)

From my understanding the Beast of Revelation is the Global world system/empire which the apostate church (Babylon Rome and it's daughters) Rides.

I would agree with your interpretation of the beast of the earth/False Prophet being the Ecuminical Church movement (ecclisiatical compromise as you put it). The realm of authority of this beast is the Church/False church, which would explain that it looks like a lamb but speak as a dragon and make the member of the apostate church worship the first beast (the world system)

I found great help from Patrick Fairbairn's " Interpretation of Prophecy" (BoT) on such Qs. I don't pretend to have all the answers either and, anyway, I think if the Lord wanted us to have a "history-beforehand" He would have given an easier book than the Book of Revelation.

But we can get a general idea about the long term trajectory of Church history, whether it is to flatline or go down (amil); or to eventually go up (postmil) - maybe long after we've gone.

From my understanding the use of a Beast in prophesies mostly refers to "empires" or "wordly realm of authority" and not to individual. In the book of Daniel the 4 Pagan empires are refered as Beasts.

Gentry shows that it can refer both to the individual head - in this case Nero - and the empire, Rome. Since, largely unsanctified, Western Christian Civilisation came out of the break up of Rome - ten toes, ten horns - where that civilisation acts in an anti-God and persecutory way, it is reviving the beastly attitude of Nero.

Here's what Hodge said about MacDonald's book:

The most commonly accepted view of the general contents of the book by those who adopt the chronological method is that so clearly presented in the admirable little work of Dr. James M. Macdonald (now of Princeton, New Jersey).846846A Key to the Book of Revelation; with an Appendix. By James M. Macdonald, Minister of the Presbyterian Church, Jamaica, L. I. Second edition. New London, 1848. According to this view, the introduction is contained in chapters i.-iii.; part second relates the Jewish persecutions, and the destruction of that power, in chapters iv.-xi. 14, part third relates the Pagan persecutions, and the end of the Pagan persecuting power, in chapters xi. 15-xiii. 10; part fourth relates the Papal persecutions and errors, and their end, in chapters xiii. 11-xix.; and part fifth relates the latter day of glory, the battle of Gog and Magog, the final judgment, and the heavenly state, in chapters xx.-xxii.

846A Key to the Book of Revelation; with an Appendix. By James M. Macdonald, Minister of the Presbyterian Church, Jamaica, L. I. Second edition. New London, 1848.

I'm not saying MacDonald has all the answers, but his general scheme seems better than the others and provides some structure and food for thought. Combine MacDonald with insights from Gentry, Bahnsen, Fairbairn, and Kik on the Olivet Discourse.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Thanks for the recommendations I will look into that.