As for the "70 AD Doctrine", I presume one refers to the idea that all of the promises related to the second coming of Christ were spiritual in nature, and that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the fulfillment of all of them. If so, then here are a few thoughts:
NAMES/TERMS GIVEN TO THIS DOCTRINE
A) A.D. 70 Doctrine
B) Realized Eschatology (doctrine of completed last things)
C) Fulfilled Eschatology
D) Covenant Eschatology
E) Preterist (past)
F) Kingism (The Max King Doctrine)
G) Hyper-Preterism
H) Radical Preterism
I) Full Preterism
Of the above, I believe realized eschatology, fulfilled eschatology, hyper-preterism, radical preterism, or full preterism are the most accurate and lest likely to impugn innocent brethren.
Many people not familiar with the issue are likely to confuse "A.D. 70 Doctrine" or "preterist" with those brethren who simply hold to the view that Revelation was written in A.D. 70. A person can believe that Revelation was written in A.D. 70 or pertains to the destruction of Jerusalem without subscribing to all the tenets of "fulfilled eschatology".
The term "Kingism" smacks of "Campbellism" and I know how we all feel when people throw that one at us. I've never heard of "covenant eschatology", so I don't know if it can possibly be confused with some other teaching that is not the same.
A DESTRUCTIVE HERESY
I believe the doctrine as taught by Max King and others is one that has damnable consequences (2Pe 2:1, KJV).
Yes, the word "damnable" is strong, but I have seen its effects in the lives of individuals and congregations. A young preacher who got his start working along with me followed this teaching to its logical conclusion (that the Bible really says nothing about what will be the end of time for us, and that the Lord Supper no longer needs to be observed because it was to be done 'til He come'), and eventually lost his faith in the Bible and the Lord Jesus altogether.
But even if one maintains his "faith" while holding to this doctrine, I still believe his soul will be lost. Why? Because he has denied the one "hope" (Ep 4:4), which clearly includes the literal resurrection of the body from the dead (cf. Ac 23:6; 24:15; 26:6-8; Ro 8:23-24).
To deny the one "hope", or to substantively change its meaning, is as damnable to one's soul as to change the one "baptism", the one "Lord", or the one "God". Since the consequence of the doctrine so seriously disrupts the "unity of the Spirit" (Ep 4:3-6), I do not know how fellowship can be maintained with those who espouse this doctrine, just as I cannot have fellowship with those who teach a different "baptism", "Lord", etc.
APPROACHING THE ISSUE
Here are some thoughts on how to approach this issue:
In my limited efforts to study with others who subscribe to the doctrine of "realized eschatology" (which includes not only the preacher referenced to above, but some members of the Presbyterian Reformed church who were well versed in the doctrine), I have focused on the Biblical teaching of the resurrection of the body. Including the passages mentioned above, I emphasize 1 Corinthians 15, where I believe the doctrine of "realized eschatology" is most weak in its efforts to explain the Scriptures.
I also depend heavily on the Book of Revelation. Subscribing to an early date (A.D. 70) myself, this puts me one up on those who hold a later date (such as 96 A.D.) that have to deal with this issue. I try to illustrate how all of the events that "realized eschatology" purports to have occurred in A.D. 70 could not have occurred at one time. Events that supposedly occurred in A.D. 70 are separated in the Book of Revelation by other events occurring over long periods of time, and to propose that all these events happened in one event is ludicrous to any who come to the book with an open mind.
For example, the defeat of the beast and the ultimate defeat of Satan are separated by the "1000 years" in which Satan is first bound and then released for a short time afterward before he too is defeated. You can't have the fall of the beast and the events described in Rev 20 both occurring in A.D. 70.
SOME RELATED THOUGHTS
That leads me to a few other points.
I have found that it is almost impossible to make any headway with someone who is strongly enamoured with this doctrine. The reason pertains to how one studies the Bible and treats the Biblical evidence. I see a great similarity in how the Bible is handled with those who are JW's.
That is, the use of presuppositions, limited definitions, ignoring context, etc., all making it difficult to reason together.
Unfortunately, it is an approach to the Scriptures that is endemic even among faithful brethren, which is one reason why the "realized eschatology" has appealed to so many. I call this approach "concordance theology" with a degree of "reactionary theology" thrown in.
Allow me to define my terms...
CONCORDANCE THEOLOGY:
This is where one lists all the Scriptures that use a particular term or phrase and draw conclusions based upon the presumption that the term or phrase means the same thing in every text. This is a mistake the JW's make with their use of "soul" and "spirit", and I have seen brethren make the same mistake with the expression "eternal life" and other terms. "Realized eschatology" make the same mistake with expressions like "the day of the Lord", or the "coming of the Lord".
I propose the Scriptures should be studied the way they were written. Verse by verse, chapter by chapter, etc., with an awareness that in most cases the original readers were expected to understand the writer without the benefit of other epistles or books that had not been written or generally available at the time.
Therefore the answer to most questions about a troublesome verse are likely to be found in the context of the verse or book itself. Certainly there are exceptions to this rule, but we must be careful not to apply a Bible author's use of a phrase or word in one context to determine what he or someone else might mean in a totally different context (whether in the book itself, or in a totally different book).
REACTIONARY THEOLOGY:
This is where one studies the Scriptures, not so much to learn what it says, but to prove that what others teach can't be true. The danger is that we are likely to accept any argument that seems to support our position, and indeed we may even go looking for arguments to support our cause.
When brethren begin to say their position is right because it makes one better able to defeat the denominationalists, that tells me "reactionary theology" has been taking place. Personally, I try to study the Bible to find out what God wants me to do, not to prove someone else wrong.
I view "realized eschatology" as an over-zealous reaction to premillennialism. But because brethren often engage in a "reactionary approach" to the Scriptures (i.e., studying to prove the others wrong rather than studying to find out they are to do), they are very susceptible to those doctrines whose appeal is how effective they appear to deal with other forms of error.
OTHER RESOURCES
Finally, here are links to some articles that deal with the issue of full-preterism...
A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism
by Kenneth Gentry, Jr.
http://www.the-highway.com
The Menace of Radical Preterism
by Wayne Jackson
http://www.christiancourier
Full Preterism and the Lord's Supper
By Michael W. Adams
http://www.ncbf.net/PDF/Supper
Matthew 24: The Achilles Heel Of Full Preterism
By Michael W. Adams
http://www.ncbf.net/PDF
Well, enough for now.
Mark (eagerly awaiting the redemption of his body - Ro 8:23-24)
3 comments:
I have not studied this subject much, nor have I encountered any one who holds to this doctrine. Thank you for the useful, balanced summary of the topic and sources for futher study.
I appreciate especially the comments on 'concordance theology' and as some one call 'proof-texting.'
I applaud your endorsement of verse by verse study of scripture. Of course, we must have liberty to compare scripture against scripture. But the scripture should provide the outline for its study. I would call that “expository.” Until about 100 years ago,it was the most common approach. Then we started to have things like concordances (good tools in themselves, but with the potential for misuse) and now software. These tools definitely lead to the temptation to “proof text.”
As with all theological ISMs, even those named after men, PreterISM isn’t really so much about its origin as it is about its development. Some people claim they don’t subscribe to any ISMs. As pious as that may sound, it is patently untrue. The moment a person utters the words, “I believe…” then whatever comes after it can be categorized into an ISM. In theology ISMs are supposed to simply be shorthand or imprecise summaries of a collection of “I believe…” statements. Without acknowledging the various ISMs to which we may knowingly or unknowingly subscribe we only fool ourselves & make productive communication about what we believe, a difficult & long drawn out process.
Having said that, I have been asked over the last several years but much more lately to put together a concise “primer” on Preterism.
TO READ MORE, FOLLOW THIS LINK:
A Primer on Preterism
Post a Comment