Have you seen or read any of GK Beale’s book? The NIGTC – The Book of Revelation. It takes the view of an eclective Redemptive-Historical form of a modified Isealism.

Reading the text of Scripture would never in a million years encourage me to adopt a historicist interpretation of Revelation; the imagery points to a bill of divorce for apostate Israel, as the curses of the covenant are poured out upon them.

The reason I support a preterist reading of prophecy has nothing to do with Rome either, but with sound exegesis of Scripture, considering what the text meant to the original audience, not reinterpreting the text in light of peculiar historical situations.

Your argument reminds me of the (non-Reformed) Baptist line that we should not be paedo-Baptists because it comes from Popery.

“It is you that appeal to all these authors that lead you astray as a schoolboy desiring to please his professors.” That is just uncharitable nonsense; how do you know that I am seeking to please Ken Gentry and Gary North? Read the Larger Catechism on the Ninth Commandment. I have listened to Greg Price and others on these issues, and came to see that the hermenuetical principles being employed were unsound. It should be noted that I became interested in Preterism BEFORE I looked into Theonomy. Moreover, Rushdoony was not a preterist, but an Idealist.

The idea that Gary North and RJ Rushdoony are “unworthy of your study” is just prideful. You need to read Chapter 26 of the WCF. Tell me, who else is writing on the type of Christian worldview themes that these men have written on?

After reading your comments, I can only suggest and encourage you to get into reading the Scriptures to see these things as your arguments are totally off point. The reason I do not follow the partial-inconsistent path of preterism is because it is founded by Rome, and consistent full-preterism is absolutely impossible to comprehend in light of Scripture. The reason I support the Trinity and Diety of Christ has nothing to do with Rome, but with Scripture and my subordinate standards. It is you that appeal to all these authors that lead you astray as a schoolboy desiring to please his professors. I seek to please nobody and certainly am not trying to make my living as a religious author. Your disagreement with Gillespie and Rutherford have no bearing on me, and your views as a “reformed covenanter” do not bother me. I am not out here seeking to win votes from anyone to support my views, but am rather spending as much time as I am able to read and learn the Scriptures primarily, and identify the distinctions made by many of our forefathers on certain passages. Unfortunately, as I’m sure you would agree, I gave up reading North and Rushdoony many years ago as presently not worthy of my study. Perhaps one day I will go back to their writings and bring myself current with your views. I will not be posting here again as I recognize this will not be a biblical exegetical discussion. It is clear to me that it is a waste of both our times, plus when the moderator controls the tool to publish (or not) my comments, I have found it best to walk away.

There is no need as you say to caricature something that was thought useful once, and now is known to be deficient. The doctrine of God does not change, but our culture and ways of understanding some what do. The risen but still Incarnate Christ lives above, on the Throne of God. Christ Jesus, the true Image of God, is the true and only origin and destiny of man in Christ.

My charity towards Historicism is more based on my deep respect for our reformation and puritan forefathers, despite not being able to accept much of their exegesis in the area of NT Bible prophecy and conclusions.

As for the historicist hermeneutic itself, while it certainly could be abused in the way that you suggest, I don’t think it has been abused in that way historically since the hermeneutic has given a more or less consistent and distinctive singular approach and conclusion to interpreting Revelation, unlike Dispensationalist Futurism which has given many different and conflicting prophetic conclusions over the years (e.g. the constantly changing identity of the antichrist and the beast, and the constantly changing date for the 2nd Coming, etc).

Thus I hesitate to caricature aberrant Historicism to the level of heretical Dispensationalism.

While it may be tempting to look to Rome for help in the fight against secular humanism, it is help we do not need.

Fr. Robert

Rome might well subscribe to some orthodox doctrines, like the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, nevertheless, its heretical view of justification (Gal. 1:6-9), and its idolatrous doctrine of the Mass puts it outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy. In my opinion, it is not a true Church of Christ, and has not been since Trent

Walt (again)

You should note that you are asking us to embrace an interpretation of Dan. 7 that NOBODY in the whole visible NT church – after the canon of Scripture was completed – could have embraced for HUNDREDS of years.

The comparison with hyper-preterism is nonsense, as this denies the bodily resurrection, and so is outside of Christian orthodoxy. However, a particular interpretation of Revelation is not a mark of orthodoxy. The idea that preterism only appeals to those who do not “have time to read Scripture” is rubbish – and you know it is. Do you believe that anything in Biblical prophecy refers to 70 AD? If so, then you have at least embraced some of the teaching of partial preterism.

As for the historical reference, tell me, do you believe that Christ is Mediatorial King of the Nation? If so, then you contradict the teachings of Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie.

I believe Rutherford and Gillespie were wrong, as did later Covenanters like William Symington, but this poses a problem for the Steelite claim of absolute sucession with the early Covenanters.

You need to stop this foolish talk. The Roman Catholic “Church” [and for the record, I believe it is a Satanic cult] also believes in the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. Should we reject those doctrines as well?

Actually, the saints did take away Nero’s dominion, as their sufferings provoked the Lord to judge him by removing him. They obtained the victory over Nero through their sufferings.

Even if you hold that the Papacy is the little horn of Daniel, that still does not mean that one must adopt a historicist view of Revelation, which is completely fanciful. Pick up 20 historicist commentators on different passages in Revelation, and you are likely to get 20 different answers. Why? Because the hermeneutic is so subjective that one may interpret it any way they like.

I would also suggest that you revise your philosophy of history; Rome is not in charge of history, nor is Satan. If you grasped this then your conspiracy theory approach to anyone who dares to question the rightness of your beloved dogma might stop.

Moreover, you do not seem to realize that I could just as easily turn around and say that the Statists love the histroricist system, because it keeps Protestants obsessed with Rome, while the Messianic State leads their nations to apostasy.

The list of reformers used in the essay above to refute historical post millennialism should not be considered the litmus test for biblical eschatology…and to lead the reader to think that because, as stated in point #1, “First, we should remember that Revelation was not well received among some of the Reformers.” and support this view with the comment, “Calvin himself wrote no commentary on it, despite his writing a very thorough series of commentary on almost all of the Bible.” does not give the reader a fair balance. In fact, because Calvin (by God’s providence) did not write a commentary on the book of Revelation should not bear testimony against the historical post-mill doctrine. In fact, eschatology was definitely not a strong subject for Calvin which is obvious by his misunderstanding of Romans 11 and numerous old testaments passages in relation to the restoration of the Jews.

As I mentioned above, one can look at Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 to define the four beasts of Daniel and identify the “little horn of Daniel” with the Papacy and not Nero.

For example: Daniel 7 :23-27

“Thus he said, The fourth beast (the Roman Empire-Walt) shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another (little horn-by partial preterist system -Nero) shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he (Nero-Walt) shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his (Nero’s-Walt) hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they (the Church of Christ) shall take away his (Nero’s) dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.”

Usually the preterists, at least the ones who interpret the little horn as Nero, should see at this point that their position needs serious reconsideration and that it is beyond absurd to interpret Nero as the little horn. The saints did not take away Nero’s dominion, but instead they continued to suffer under Nero and his successors until the time of Constantine…at which time…the sixth seal was poured out and God judged heathen Rome and blessed the Christian Church.

Obviously the Roman Catholic Church loves the Preterist system of eschatology, and and certainly there is much evidence they are the originators of this theory. It really has zero bearing on the subject to line up all the Reformers who taught the subject, and systematically discredit their positions…this is no better than the method used by Rome to undermine and lead astray her followers. Nothing better in the first part of every argument to discredit those who were alleged to have been authors and supporters of a view, even if in reality they clearly promoted error on the subject.

The full preterist is really the only **consistent** preterist view in my opinion, but once you remove the entire book of Revelation from our generation in the study of end things, I think you loose your followers quickly. The partial preterist view is one which can sell books and tapes, and certainly appeal to those who don’t have time to read Scripture. When our moderator writes, “Personally, I believe that the Historicist hermeneutic is no more credible than the fanciful exegesis of modern Dispensationalist writers:” and someone confirms, “I totally agree.” it is time to ask for some clarification on Rev. 1 and Daniel 7 by the partial preterist.

I’m leaving town for a week, but would be delighted to see the proper preterist views expounded on the subject. It is always possible I will return to my preterist views from where I am today. I don’t think I could ever return to dispensationalism as that is also a Romish invention, but let’s see what our modern reformed covenanters can do to make me come back to the mother Church on this subject. I’m all eyes and ears (if this post makes it through).