The Case Against Preterism

Part 1.

by Lee Edward Enochs,
Evangelical Debate Society of
Southern California


"But examine everything carefully, hold fast to the truth."

(1 Thessalonians 5:21)



In recent days, I have received a number of questions, comments and requests regarding my views on the subject of Preterism. Because of the enormous response regarding this subject, I will be posting weekly on my theological blog regarding this subject. I have been also asked to debate on the subject of Preterism, an event which could transpire in the near future.




Preterism-

A Christian system of eschatological thought popular in various forms of Postmillenial and Amillennial theology that postulates that all of the end-times events mentioned in the Bible are believed to have been already fulfilled. These events were fulfilled in the past, particularly before 70 AD. during the Roman-Jewish war, wherein the Roman army led by General Titus, destroyed the Jewish Temple and dispersed the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

The term preterism is derived from the word preterite, or past perfect tense; it also has its roots in the Latin word præter, meaning "past." Adherents of Preterism are known as Preterists. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism


Adherents of "Partial Preterism" maintain that many aspects of Biblical eschatology were fulfilled in 70 AD but not all.

In recent years, the subject of Preterism and Partial Preterism has become a very popular discussion in educated Evangelical circles. The popularity of the Preterism issue has been brought upon due to many Evangelicals dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the popularization of Pretribulational and Dispensationalist views in such books as "The Left Behind Series" and due to the writings of partial Preterist theological writers RC Sproul and Hank Hanegraaf who authored the books "The Last Days According to Jesus" and "The Last Disciple" in recent years.


Due to my robust Augustinian soteriological convictions, many people over the years, have simply assumed that I must be Amillennialst or Postmillennalist, with Partial Preterist sympathies. However, this could not be further from the truth. For the record, I want to state publically, that I am a Premillennialist and Pretribulationalist and have been for twenty years.

For years I sat under Dr. David L. Hocking and John MacArthur, dispenationalist Bible teachers and I was educated at Moody Bible Institute, Biola University and the Master's Seminary, traditional bastions of Premillenial eschatological belief. Furthermore, I believe in the distinction between Israel and the Christian Church and that God has a future hope for the national of Israel. If I could be classified in a theological camp, I would most closely adhere to what is known as "Progressive Dispensationalism" made popular by Professor Dr. Robert L. Saucy of Talbot School of Theology and Darrel Boch of Dallas Theological Seminary and Craig Blaising, formerly of Dallas Seminary and Southern Baptist Seminary in KY, now research professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth Texas.

While, I have many friends in various Evangelical camps of eschatological conviction and do not make ones views on the end times a litmus test for Evangelical Orthodoxy, I have become exceedingly concerned about the rise of Preterism and Partial Preterism in many Evangelical circles and am constantly being asked questions about the subject and have been asked by some to debate on the subject of Preterism.

One thing that has personally bothered me in recent years about the attack against Premillennialism and Pretribulationalism, is the constant negative mention of John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethern as the founders of the Pretribulationalist view, as though mentioning Darby and the Plymouth Brethern somehow taints the entire Pretribulational argument.

Those who attack Pretribulationalism and Dispensationalist Premillennialism on the grounds that it was founded by Darby and the P.B. are guilty of the logical fallacy of
Ad Hominem. Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." as the nizkor project has rightly stated:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


I have done a tremendous amount of study on the history of John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethern and can demonstrate conclusively that Darby and the Plymouth Brethren were theologically orthodox and Evangelical. Many Amillennial and Postmillenial opponents of the Pretribulationalist view might be suprised to discover that John Nelson Darby was a devout Calvinist who once separated from D.L. Moody over the Chicago Evangelist's alleged Arminian views. Hence, those Preterist and Partial Preterist advocated and opponents of Pretribulationalism need to stick to the arguments without resorting to personal attacks against Darby and the Plymouth Brethern.

Next time: I will explore the Preterist and Partial Preterist postions in depth.