Preterism is something that I personally had not heard of until about 5 years ago. It has become more popular in recent years and many reputable people hold to a partial or full preterist view. Some are Hank Hanegraaf, Gary Demar, and many others.
Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days or End Times refer to events which actually happened in the first century after Christ’s birth. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning “past”. Adherents of Preterism are known as Preterists. The two principal schools of Preterist thought are commonly called Partial Preterism and Full Preterism.
In the Word of God something we that would somewhat seem relevant to this teaching is when Hymenaeus is mentioned by name twice in Scripture (1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:17) — named in connection with Alexander (the coppersmith) and also Philetus. The apostle Paul denounced him as a blasphemer. Scripture does not fully describe his heresy, but apparently Hymenaeus denied the future physical resurrection of the born again (2 Timothy 2:17-18), as taught by Jesus Christ (John 5:25-29) and Paul (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). He claimed, instead, that the believer’s “resurrection” only happens in a spiritual sense, occurring at the moment one is born again. This heresy was apparently taught by the Nicolaitanes.
So this is my question-If we meet a Christian today that believes the essentials of the Faith- (the authority of Scripture, the existence of a triune God, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit – Christ/Who is fully God and fully man – was sent to save the elect from our bondage of sin, and other things that can be affirmed by the Word of God.) but hold to a different eschatalogical position, can we say they are not saved? Now some as mentioned above are partial meaning they believe some of the events have already taken place and others say they believe Christ has already done all that is said would be done throughout the book of Revelation.
I personally think that if you are a Full Preterist that you have some serious explaining to do but I have not spent a whole lot of time studying this topic. Lionel and I are currently going through the presuppositions of Covenant Theology and Dispensationlism. At this time I do not believe in the “Rapture” and have recently decided to study this more in depth. So this may change-so don’t hold me to a position yet.
I would love to hear some insight on this topic from a Biblical perspective on what many of you think.
Here is the question again-Is Preterism Heresy?
Some information obtained from www.wikipedia.com
Hey Tyris I hope it is okay that I add this article from 9Marks. I think it can add to the question and even provides some feed back.
Theological Triage – By Dr. Mohler
What up Ty?
As I read your question it is hard to question someones position on eschatology bro. I wrestle with this because you and I will say the blessed hope is the literal physical ressurection of the dead or the immediate transforming of our bodies when Christ returns. The bible is clear that “Christ is the firstfruits” of the ressurection. We next see the latter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians was an answer to this very question. Well that it isn’t what you asked, so I say this. Christ died for bad theology (if you agree with the gospel which preterist do without a shadow of doubt).
Hey Guys,
Thanks for letting me join this discussion. I would say yes we must speak up against heresy. The tricky part is what do we define as heresy? Is bad theology always heresy? For example, are our “non reformed” brothers heretical?
Are far as Preterism goes, I used to be part of a church that grew out of a church split. The church split because the pastor had gotten pretty deep into Preterism. They referred to him as a “hyper preterist”. In essence he had begun to preach that just about everything in Revelation had taken place and we were leaving on the “New Earth”.
That is just one example of people who choose to speak up against something they felt was heretical (going against the direct word of God).
Agreed brother Lionel but I still wrestle with this issue but cannot grasp the desire to study this one issue in depth since I have not completely understood Dispensationlism and Covenant Theology. Preterism has not really been a major issue. Everthing concerning the word of God is major but I only know 1 preterist so it is not a highly debated issue.
Chris Chappell, thanks for vising brother. If your old pastor says we are living on the new earth then he has some major issues because I don’t know when this earth was ever destroyed by fire like Peter says will happen.
That is a great question you asked. what is heresy and as lionel said Christ died for bad theology to a certain extent. I wrote an article on this issue (http://thinkchristians.blogspot.com/2007/10/slap-of-heresy.html)
God bless brother in Christ
I read the article you posted lionel, It was very short and to the point but also very very true. Still this is on the edge.
Does Acts 1:9-11 require us to believe in a future, physical, visible, bodily return of Jesus to the earth?
“If I can prove the absurdity of this claim we should be able to quell the voices of opposition and build one another up on a sure foundation and hope. While there are several Scriptures that speak of a physical return of Christ, I will concentrate on just one, which I hope will prove to be the index for the others.”
So let us set about examining this one passage that allegedly requires a physical return of Christ.
Acts 1:9-11 “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in while apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, 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.”
There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus was present, and that the disciples beheld him. This beholding could even be that of the physical eye. This causes me no problem or consternation. The question is, did they BEHOLD him go up into the sky, as one painting I have seen depicts the ascension. What is there in the text that requires me to believe that the ascension of Jesus was an ascension into the sky, rather than an ascension into heaven?
Let’s assume for a moment that Jesus ascended not into the sky, but into heaven, to the right hand of the Father. Did the disciples actually SEE Him go into heaven? What does the text say?
Acts 1: 9 “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him OUT OF THIER SIGHT.”
The text is clear; He was taken out of their sight.
So how does this require that He will be visible upon His “coming in like manner”? Wouldn’t it be more consistent with Scripture if His “coming” was to be “in or with clouds”?
The problem with the author’s view about this passage is that he is concentrating on the wrong words! No one is disputing the words he is using and their meaning (blepo, ophthalmos, atemzo, emblepo). No one is claiming that the disciples were blind, or that Jesus was not present. The question is, what precisely did the disciples observe, and what is it’s meaning?
Did they observe Jesus going up into the sky, even up into the clouds, such that they could no longer see him because He had risen so far up into the sky that the natural clouds obscured their vision such that they were no longer able to observe Him, as this author seems to think? How high in the sky did He go I wonder? Is heaven really up above us then? Could the ascension have taken place on a cloudless day?
I’m sure you will conclude that ” As we can see, this verse is clearly speaking of a visible occurrence, where the physical body of Jesus is ascending into the clouds.”
Does it? Does the passage teach that Jesus ascended into the sky, or does it teach that He ascended into heaven? Does the passage speak of “clouds”, as this author maintains, or does it speak of “a cloud”?
So what are the words that this author DOES need to deal with in order to convince me? First he needs to convince me that the disciples actually observed Jesus go up into the sky and into natural clouds. Until he does so, I will maintain that Jesus ascended into heaven, not the sky, and that THE CLOUD that the disciples saw that hid Him from their sight was a cloud of glory and not a natural cloud. Does this author really believe that Jesus will return in or on physical clouds?
Acts 1:9-11 “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was TAKEN UP; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly TOWARD heaven as HE WENT UP, behold, two men stood by them in while apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, 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.”
taken up toward heaven he went up gazing up taken up into
I’ll agree. All these words give one the impression that Jesus went up into the sky and that the disciples stood there looking up into the sky. But what is the Greek that lies beneath these words? What does it indicate? If you are going to do a Greek word, do one on these words.
Do they really teach what you want them to teach, what you need them to teach? Isn’t there a Greek preposition which indicates UP in a spatial sense? Is it present in this passage?
“The Greek phrase “on tropon” plainly means “what manner.” This Greek expression says A. Alexander, “never indicates mere certainty or vague resemblance; but wherever it occurs in the New Testament, denotes identity of mode or manner” (A. Alexander, Acts, ad loc.)”
If His return will be identical to the way He went into heaven it will be UNSEEN.
Acts 1:11b “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.”
Acts 1:9b “and a cloud received him OUT OF THEIR SIGHT.
They could not see Him. That’s what out of their sight means.
Besides, no one believes that Jesus is going to come back exactly like He went into heaven. There are too many other passages in scripture which describe a different mode and manner of His coming from what is described here in Acts 1. See Rev. 19 for example, where He returns riding a white horse in clothes soaked in blood.
In conclusion, Acts 1:9-11 does not promise a
physical, visible return. The belief that Jesus will return in clouds, hidden from physical sight, is perfectly consistent with this passage.
Heresy = Self designed false doctrine developed from mishandled truth.
I Ain’t Nobody!
Good topic.
I believe all of us could agree that God has only presented one truth in His Scripture and therefore there can not be several true views. I say this because a postmill, premill and a-mill view can all be in the same room and call each other brother. Yet I have seen a brother with a preterist view enter the discussion and be called a heretic. I have found this to be intellectually dishonest at best, because the “three” at the table are refusing room to an alternative position which is just as Scripturally defensible as the other three.
So in response to the growth of preterism which is another view and the other “-isms”(historicism, futurism, idealism), I would say only one of these can be true and not heresy because God has only revealed one plan in His One Son, Jesus Christ.
To define what a koine greek text is saying. You must look at it, not from what you think. What would it mean if
were never born. Question; what do you mean by taken up in the air? Heaven, sky, would that mean north, south, east, west? And if that meant into the cosmo, or the galaxy then where? See gentlemen without a firm understanding of how these theologians came to this understanding we have a tendency to vacilate. Msamu when the text declines
nouns and adjectives, how do you understand the narrative?
One Pastor Xerxes
Christglory you said:
“Yet I have seen a brother with a preterist view enter the discussion and be called a heretic. I have found this to be intellectually dishonest at best, because the “three” at the table are refusing room to an alternative position which is just as Scripturally defensible as the other three.”
I agree wholeheartedly brother or sister!
I’m no Bible scholar so maybe someone can please answer for me.
Question:
Was the first century churches eschatology presented as an all inclusive teaching of premill, postmill, amill and preterism? In other words, did the Disciples present or teach that Believers could each personally hold to one the aforementioned isms?
I Ain’t Nobody?
Hello djdesignz. Honestly not sure on that question. People’s understanding on what the church believed according to the scriptures unfortunately can be interpreted many different ways. It would appear from my limited understanding, that along with the scriptures other extra biblical information seemed to say that the Christians of that day were looking for a physical returning of Christ in a future tense. Someone might have other information to offer but I don’t unfortunately. In Christ
“People’s understanding on what the church believed according to the scriptures unfortunately can be interpreted many different ways.”
Absolutely Mr. Horton, but the reality is (and I think that Christglory hit on it a ‘lil) while there are varied interpretations there is only one Truth. It is factual that the Disciples did NOT teach premill, postmill, amill and preterism all as viable eschatological positions, for the first century church.
So back to the original question about Preterism being heresy. I only know about Preterism based on reading opposing viewpoints about it. So I’m not definitively capable of saying it is or that it isn’t, because I’ve not examined its tenets that deeply.
I do know this, everyone claims to have the “truth” but you’ll NEVER have the Truth if you aren’t willing to fight for it!
-Selah
I Ain’t Nobody!
I’d like to invite many of you who are interested in a full discussion on Preterism. I know that many of you have been taught Dispensationalism since your youth. Or perhaps you’re fairly new to any form of eschatology. There’s much to talk about, and I’d be happy to do this here, but it’s difficult to engage in a discussion on boards like this. My user ID name is “TheForgiven”, and my name is Joe. The owner of the biblewheel forum is Richard, and his lovely wife, Rose.
Here’s a link: http://biblewheel.com/Forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18
This link will take you directly to the forum where we debate preterism, and other “ism’s” taught since the beginning.
Just a quick comment on Acts chapter one. The problem comes form the Greek word “Houto”, which some English Bibles translate as “SO”. The more direct interpretation is the phrase, “In Like Manner” or “similarly”. We are discussing this very issue within the BibleWheel forum. Here’s short portion:
In like manner (houto)
Matt. 12:40 “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so (houto) shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
Luke 11:30 “For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so (houto) shall also the Son of man be to this generation.”
John 3:16 “For God so (houto) loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Acts 1:11 “Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so (houto) come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”
Rom. 11:26 “And so (houto) all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, there shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:”
Eph. 5:24 “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so (houto) let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”
Col. 3:13 “Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so (houto) also do ye.”
James 1:11 “For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so (houto) also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.”
11 Peter 1:11 “For so (houto) an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
The best example I can give is the misinterpretation of John 3:16. We interpret the Greek word “Houto” as “amount”, and is “So much”……FOR GOD SO (MUCH) LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON….
The text is not telling us how much God loved the world, but rather is contrasting how Moses lifted up the serpent. Here’s the text with the correct translation of the Greek word “Houto”:
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God [similarly] loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
So in Acts chapter 1, the Apostles beheld Jesus vanishing behind a cloud. The Angel tells them that Jesus would return [similarly, or in-like-manner] in clouds.
Now, reading the Old testament, there are a few passages that speak of God coming in clouds of judgment. There is your likeness.
I’d like to invite all of you to join in this discussion. Now before you write a Preterist off as heretical, at least offer a good defense in doing so. The scriptures are filled with metaphoric expressions, and that is how God primarily communicated His message to the prophets, nearly always speaking in parables.
And yes, Revelation is a done deal….all fulfilled. Here are a few things you need to understand before you can understand Revelation.
SYMBOLS:
Sea – Gentiles
Land – Israel/Jerusalem
Beast – Evil Empire
Head – King
Hills – governments
horns – additional provincial kings
Babylon – Jerusalem (or Rome depending on your view)
Pillar – Church Leader/Priest/Elder/Important Person
Stone – Solid Christian
Jewel – Purified Christian
Pearls – Apostles
Now here’s a critical question for you. If the Beast of Revelation is not literal, why should his mark be? Are Christian’s literally marked with the seal of God? By no means! Then why would the lost be literally marked by a non-literal Beast? Think wisely friends, and I hope to see you all at the Biblewheel forum.
Come join us my friends, and let us sharpen our swords, in peace.
Joe
“People’s understanding on what the church believed according to the scriptures unfortunately can be interpreted many different ways.”
Absolutely Mr. Horton, but the reality is (and I think that Christglory hit on it a ‘lil) while there are varied interpretations there is only one Truth. It is factual that the Disciples did NOT teach premill, postmill, amill and preterism all as viable eschatological positions, for the first century church.
So back to the original question about Preterism being heresy. I only know about Preterism based on reading opposing viewpoints about it. So I’m not definitively capable of saying it is or that it isn’t, because I’ve not examined its tenets that deeply.
I do know this, everyone claims to have the “truth” but you’ll NEVER have the Truth if you aren’t willing to fight for it!
-Selah
I Ain’t Nobody!
GOOD POST MY FRIEND.
Preterism was not taught during the days of the Apostles, because the time of Daneil’s end had not yet come. Daniel’s end was about the end of his people, and city, not about the end of the world as we see so many teachers teaching at church, or on television. On the contrary, the Bible speaks of the wold enduring forever. Some mistakenly interpret Peter’s “elements” burning in the fire as the molecules of heaven and earth. But the word there is not molecular structure, but teachings, rudiments, or ways of doing things. Hebrews chapter 6 uses the same Greek word as does Peter. In that paragraph, the author of Hebrews states, “Let us lay aside the “elementary” teachings of the Christ, about washings, laying on of hands, and eternal judgment….”
Here the author of Hebrews was talking about the early instructions about salvation, and he’s encouraging them to forget about the beginning, and press on towards the finish line.
In the same way, Peter wasn’t talking about the Heaven and earth (elements) being destroyed by fire, but their teachings, specifically, the Jewish way of worship, i.e the physical temple, the animal sacrifices, the ceremonial cleansing, fasting, Sabbath days, and new moon feasts. All of those things were a picture of what was to come, and not the reality of divine worship.
What they were awaiting was the destruction of the city, and the temple, as Christ speaks about in Matthew 24. Jesus tells them that the temple would be destroyed, and they wanted to know the sign of when this was going to happen. Everything He mentioned to them came true in the mid 60’s AD, and was completed around 70-71 AD. The first sign was whey they saw the abomination that was similar to the days of Antiochus IV, who surrounded the temple and desecrated the sanctuary. Antiochus IV was a picture of what would happen in 70AD, when the Romans surrounded the temple, and stole all the treasures within the temple. This spawned a fight between them and the Jews, and although General Titus didn’t want to destroy the temple, an accident occurred during the struggle, and the temple caught fire, eventually spreading to the entire city. The end resulted in more than 1,100,000 Jews either taken captive into slavery (later killed in the newly erected Roman Arena), or nailed to built crosses by the thousands.
Futurism (in my opinion) found its birth with early fathers such as Papias, and Iranaeus. However, both have flawed writings, although little is known about Papias, except by what Iraenaeus quotes from him. And seeing both of their writings contained many known errors, easily shown to be wrong, how reliable can their eschatology be?
Iraenaues claimed that Christ died at the age of 50 years old (we believe he was more about 32). He also stated that Christ lived at the age of each person being saved, so that His authorship would be more perfect, i.e. young for young, adult for adult, and elder for elder.
Papias taught that Christ would return and rule the earth for 1000 years, and literal fruits would grow and nourish mankind during this time. But another Early Church Father, in the 2nd century (same time as Papias and Iraenaeus) basically considered the two above to be in error. This was Clement of Rome. Preterism has its beginning in the 2nd century, based on what I’ve discovered, but there were also Futurist teachers of different caliber. Futurism eventually became Historcist (to some degree) around the 4rth century and would later be changed around the 14th century. Finally, Futuristism took a dramatic turn in the 18th century, by a British female (name forgotten), and that eschatology became what we now see in America, though much more dramatized. Preterism was known as far back as the 2nd century, and would flourish again around the 14th century.
The details are a bit vague, but this would be a great discussion.
Come see us at the Biblewheel.com forum. I promise you’ll enjoy a great discussion.
Joe