Printer Friendly Version

Particulars of Christianity:
313 Preterism


Preterism Part 8: Brief Summary of Conclusions

Preterism Part 1: The Basics and Partial Preterism
Preterism Part 2: Olivet and the Transcendent "You"
Preterism Part 3: The Remaining "Proof Texts"
Preterism Part 4: Appealing to Josephus
Preterism Part 5: Uninterrupted Futurism into 2nd Century
Preterism Part 6: Nero, History, and Biblical Details
Preterism Part 7: Scripture and a Delayed Coming
Preterism Part 8: Brief Summary of Conclusions
Behold I Come Quickly
Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass
When Was Revelation Written?
A Throne of His Own
Addendum: "The Time Is At Hand"



In summation, what have we learned about the Preterist/Futurist debate? First, we have learned that Partial Preterism is completely unacceptable because by adopting a form of parousia delay, it denies the basic premise of so-called Preterist proof texts. Second, we have learned that Preterism denies the clear Biblical principle of the Transcendent "You," which is established by Deuteronomy 18, Acts 3 and 7, and Matthew 28. Third, we have learned that Preterist proof texts such as Matthew 10 can be invalidated simply by viewing them side by side with their parallel passages in scripture.

Fourth, Preterist proof texts such as Matthew 9:1 do not support their theory since the apostle John who was present at that time did see the return of Christ in a vision before his death. Fifth, John 12:31-32 cannot be used as a Preterist proof text because that verse itself requires a temporal delay of 40 years. Sixth, the Preterists' use of Luke 17 to claim that the second coming of Christ would occur without observable evidence is invalid since Jesus himself gives specific signs of things that must take place in the Olivet prophecies. Seventh, Preterists themselves invalidate their claims concerning Luke 17 by appealing to Nero as the historical antichrist.

Eight, by theorizing that Nero is the antichrist, Preterists open the door for validating their theory by comparing the historical and Biblical records, records which cannot be reconciled and so disprove Preterist doctrine. Ninth, Preterist appeals to the historian Josephus are irrelevant since Josephus himself never testified to the return of Christ at all let alone in 70 AD. Tenth, Preterists ignore a clear, unbroken chain of Futurism handed down from the apostles through 70 AD on into the 3rd century. Eleventh, Preterists ignore New Testament scripture from both the Gospels and the epistles, which demonstrate that both Jesus and the apostles understood there would be a long delay before his second coming. For all of these reasons, which we have expounded upon in detail in this study, we have no choice but to reject Preterism as a clearly false doctrine.