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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

Thanks for the link!

 

[G.Wetmore]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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?

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.

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.

...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]

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]

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.

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]

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).

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 perterism is the correct spelling? Isn't it preterism?