The first chapter of “The End Times Controversy” is entitled “What Is Preterism?“ Its author is Dr. Thomas Ice, executive director of the Pre-Trib Research Center, and writer of many books and study materials written from the Dispensational perspective. Several other articles in this book are also written by him.
Chapter 1 serves as a basic outline of what Preterism is, and what are some of its distinctive teachings. Ice begins by giving a broad overview of the various eschatological viewpoints, which include Preterism, Futurism, Historicism, and Idealism. He remarks that Preterism is sometimes confused with Historicism, the two systems being similar in approach, and looking for the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the events of history. The two schools see many details of the Apocalyptic narrative as having been fulfilled.
After giving an outline of the different views, and their relation to the eschatological debate, Dr. Ice shifts his focus on Preterism, breaking the movement into three groups, which he denominates as ”Mild Preterism,” “Moderate Preterism,” and “Extreme Preterism.” The author states that he is not aware of anyone on the contemporary scene who espouses Mild Preterism — even though this is, historically speaking, the most common form of Preterist doctrine. This means that modern-day Preterists fall into two groups: Moderate Preterism and Extreme Preterism.
Ice does not focus on the controversy between Moderate and Extreme Preterism, which is something that belongs mainly within the Reformed community. He does, however, turn his attention on Preterism as it relates to Dispensational theology. And he states at the outset that the book will be interacting primarily with the doctrines of Partial Preterism.
“In this book, our focus will be upon refuting partial preterism. If partial preterism is deemed untenable, then obviously the more extreme form will not be viable as well. What’s more, we believe that when one ventures into extreme or full preterism, then he has moved away from orthodoxy into false teaching. Because full preterism believes that Christ’s only coming (i.e. the second coming) occurred in A.D. 70, and because the translation and resurrection of believers are clearly connected with that event in Scripture (1 Cor. 15: 1; 1 Thess. 4: 13-17), then that means full preterism is heretical.” (pg. 24).
Ice then proceeds to demonstrate some of the major implications of Preterist theology on end-time prophecy, by citing comments mainly culled from David Chilton’s books. Chilton is a good representative of what may be called “Modern Preterism,” his writings having had great impact on the movement.
The author next points out that many Preterists (such as R.C. Sproul) feel that they are “helping to save Christianity from liberal skeptics like Bertrand Russell and Albert Schweitzer, by adopting a Preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy.” Since a chief bone of contention with the skeptics is that Jesus did not return during the time-frame he predicted, Sproul and others have suggested Preterism as a viable solution. They say that Christ DID return, but that His coming was fulfilled in a non-literal manner.
Regarding this approach, however, Dr. Ice writes:
“…When it comes to the Bible, we cannot fight liberalism with liberalism. Dr. Sproul believes that he is defending the integrity of Scripture by adopting the preterist viewpoint. However, in reality, I believe he is adopting a naturalistic interpretation that too many liberals feel at home with. While Dr. Sproul sees Matthew 24 as a prophecy that was fulfilled in the first century, liberal preterists join him in giving a naturalistic explanation, though they do so from a different framework. Ultimately, they both deny that our Lord prophesied a supernatural, bodily, visible return of Christ in fulfillment of Matthew 24.” (pg. 27).
By “liberal preterists,” Ice ostensibly refers to the German critical school represented by such men as Eichhorn, De Wette, and Delitzsch. These German critics often espoused Preterism as a means to avoid the supernatural elements of predictive prophecy. Although Sproul can hardly be classed with this group, Ice’s observation that his preterism is really another form of the same liberalism, is doubtless correct.
Ice then moves on to cover the Preterist view regarding Christ’s Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24/Mark 13). Selecting the significant words and phrases from that discourse, he adds running commentaries by Dr. Kenneth Gentry, which serve to give an overall view of how Preterists deal with prophetic texts. This is the most interesting section of the chapter, as it helps to exemplify the liberal element inherent in Preterist interpretation.
One example of Dr. Gentry’s modus operandi may be seen in Matthew 24: 29, where Christ says: “The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light, and the stars shall fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”
Gentry writes:
“How then should we understand verse 29? Rather than interpreting it literally, we must interpret it covenantally!… By the very requirement of the context, this passage speaks of the collapse of political Israel in A.D. 70… When a national government collapses in war and upheaval, it is often portrayed as a cosmic catastrophe – an undoing of creation… Consequently, we may see how easy it is to apply Matthew 24: 29 to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.” (pg. 32).
I might argue that the author’s view involves a mis-application of eschatological terminology. But Ice’s selection of Gentry’s quotations is sufficient to demonstrate how Preterists mishandle the Word of God. The error is not confined to Gentry, but is common to any teaching which seeks to make Christ’s parousia a past event.
Before wrapping up the article, Dr. Ice briefly discusses the Preterist views of the Book of Revelation. He observes that Preterists base their idea of first-century fulfillment on what are called “timing texts.” These include words and phrases such as: “The time is near;” “I am coming quickly,” and “things which must shortly take place.”
Since I myself hold to a grammatical/historical reading of these texts, I will refrain from commenting on the received mode of interpretation, until I get to chapter 4, in which Dr. Ice deals with these Preterist time indicators. I will say, though, that Preterists make a mistake in falsely applying an “inerrantist” principle to many passages which are conditional in nature.
In closing, Dr. Ice makes an observation with which I entirely agree. He writes:
“The timing of a passage is determined by taking into account all factors in a given passage.” (pg. 34).
Yes, it seems that is what Preterists have missed. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is to be approached according to consistent, orderly hermeneutical principles. To take the time-texts literally, and yet to spiritualize passages which indicate how a prophecy will be fulfilled, displays a logical bias which can never lead one to the attainment of objective truth.
To sum it up, then, I think that Dr. Ice does an excellent job in bringing to light the main elements involved in a Preterist interpretation of Scripture. It is my wish that readers purchase this book (if they haven’t already), in order to gain a better understanding of the issues at stake in the ongoing eschatological battle.
No comments:
Post a Comment