KC Comments from "Ask Doug"
Original source: Ask Doug: When You Have a Preterist Hammer…
I post the comments here because the web template at canonwired makes the comments very difficult to read, and obscures links.
8 Comments
Partial preterists teach that Matthew
24:30 is talking about AD70. Partial preterists teach that full preterists are wrong
to not believe in a future (for us) second coming, because the church creeds teach
that doctrine. But the creeds also base this doctrine on Matthew 24:30 and other
passages which partial preterists have said refer to AD 70. Is there a Biblical text
that teaches a future second coming that CANNOT refer to AD70?
agm
Kevin,
Acts 1.
agm: you mean verse 11: “why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” Everybody agrees that “in like manner” cannot be taken too literally. As Russell notes in The Parousia (p. 147), “There are obvious points of difference between the manner of the Ascension and the Parousia. He departed alone, and without visible splendour; He was to return in glory with His angels.” But a glorious and personal coming in glory with the angels to reward every man according to his works was said by Jesus to be something that that generation would witness (Matthew 16:27-28). So Acts 1 is not a passage which CANNOT refer to AD70. It is certainly possible to understand the passage as referring to the same event as Matt. 16.
But I would extend my point a bit. The
creeds DISPROVE partial preterism. In an attempt to buttress the doctrine of a
yet-future second coming, the creeds rely on verses which partial preterists
attribute to AD70. One way or the other, if partial preterism is true, the creeds
are in error. Either their doctrine is in error or their prooftexts are.
Kevin:
1. Do you believe that any given
passage, prophecy, or aspect of symbolism in Scripture can only refer to one thing,
which is assumed in your false dilemma above?
2. Do you deny the future resurrection of the body? Do you believe that we ought to “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die?”
3. Do you believe that death has been cast
into the abyss in the past with no possibility for greater future fulfillment, that
our swords have been beaten into plowshares in the past with no possibility for
greater future fulfillment, and that Christ has made his enemies his footstool in
the past with no possibility for greater future fulfillment? Do you believe that the
church reached eschatological perfection without spot or blemish in the past with no
possibility for greater future fulfillment?
Michael asks me:
1. Do you believe that any given passage, prophecy, or aspect of symbolism in Scripture can only refer to one thing, which is assumed in your false dilemma above?
I believe a passage can refer to two things if the Bible says it does. For example, Matthew 1:23 says Isaiah 7:14 refers to something beyond Ahaz’ day. Who am I to argue with Matthew? But if Michael Duchemin says that Matthew 16:27 or Matthew 24:30 speaks not only of 70AD but also of a future event thousands of years away, I’m going to do the Berean thing (Acts 17:11) and see if that’s what the Bible really says.
2. Do you deny the future resurrection of the body? Do you believe that we ought to “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die?”
I don’t deny anything the Bible teaches. I believe everything the Bible teaches. I believe the Bible teaches that we should eat, drink and be merry (Ecc. 9:7), but not because that’s all there is, and nothing after death.
3. Do you believe that death has been cast into the abyss in the past with no possibility for greater future fulfillment, that our swords have been beaten into plowshares in the past with no possibility for greater future fulfillment, and that Christ has made his enemies his footstool in the past with no possibility for greater future fulfillment? Do you believe that the church reached eschatological perfection without spot or blemish in the past with no possibility for greater future fulfillment?
I believe Christians who answer Biblical
preterism with human
creeds tend to underestimate what Christ has already accomplished, as well
as what He is going to do in the future. If
you knew me you would know I believe a whole lot of swords are going to be
beaten into plowshares in the future.
Having slept on my comments, I’ve thought about this in a new way. Michael asks:
Do you believe that the church reached eschatological perfection without spot or blemish in the past
with no possibility for greater future fulfillment?
I answered: I believe Christians who answer Biblical preterism with human creeds tend to underestimate what Christ has already accomplished, as well as what He is going to do in the future.
There are actually two questions here. The answer to the first question is yes, but the answer to the second question is no.
The Catechism says our chief end is to “glorify God.” But how can we add glory to an already all-glorious God? I can’t give you a bumper sticker-sized explanation, but we can.
The full preterest says all prophecies have been fulfilled. A believer in AD 71 could legitimately and Biblically rejoice and give thanks for the eschatologically complete fulfillment of those prophecies. There was no Biblical basis for gripes that Christ hadn’t done enough. Full preterism is true. And yet there was still the possibility (which we have seen) of greater future fulfillment.
When Jesus said that “this generation” would see all these things, He was true to His Word. All prophecies about the Second Coming and Day of Judgment were perfectly fulfilled. And yet we will see greater things.
In describing the “New Heavens and a New Earth,” Isaiah 65 says they will “build houses.” Obviously not all houses have been built that will ever be built. But the NHNE did in fact commence.
If the creeds deny full preterism — past
fulfillment of prophecies — they are in error — unless there is a Biblical
prophecy which teaches some “commencing” event thousands of years in the future,
that could not possibly have commenced during “that generation.” agm suggested
that Acts 1 was such a passage, I disagree. Is there another candidate for a passage
that CANNOT POSSIBLY have been fulfilled while some of “that
generation” were still alive?
Cody
Lovingly I disagree with the Preterist thought.
John MacArthur does a good job explaining
that particular scripture in Matthew 24 that says “This generation will not pass
away…” In Matthew 24 Christ is talking about a future persecution of the church.
MacArthur believes that “this generation…” is the future generation living in
the time of that great persecution.
I lovingly respect Cody for believing everything John McArthur teaches. He’s a great teacher and generally reliable. But I would lovingly remind Cody that no human teacher is infallible. We need to be like the Bereans, who searched the Scriptures to check on their teachers.
If you search the Scriptures for the New Testament meaning of “this generation” — not a possible dictionary meaning, but the actual meaning as used by Jesus and New Testament writers — you will see overwhelmingly that “this generation” was the generation that rejected Jesus as the Christ. Click here for the verses.