Does preterism lead to atheism?

[seanD]

You're cherry-picking by interpreting everything by what you keep propounding here, that "He said that we would know the season." One would think that's obvious, but I keep forgetting it's you I'm talking with. Yes, you mentioned date-setting and numerology, but those are used in conjunction with calendars. As I said, that happened relatively rarely in church history until 19th century America. Conversely, seeing signs of the end has been around pretty much throughout church history. Why don't you try learning a little of that sometime? Do you have a better argument than aping the style of my post?

I'm not sure what you're arguing about Matthew 24:32-33 exactly. Are you saying that Jesus instructing his disciples to know the season means something else? Even a preterist could argue that Jesus was talking about the season of the 70 CE war. Or do you have a different interpretation of that all together? Instead of spouting off your ad hom, why don't you point out how I'm cherry-picking that passage? Paul didn't chastise the Thessalonians about future prophecy all together just because they were wrong; instead he gave them better clarity of the signs they were expecting and the ability to judge these coming events in a better light. The fact that the church has been wrong throughout history doesn't prove that futurism is wrong so I"m not sure why you brought that up in the first place. Assuming futurism is correct, then the solution is not to abandon future prophecy because the church has a history of getting it wrong but to understand the criteria of recognizing the signs more accurately in order to try and solve that issue, and that requires paying heed to Jesus' instructions which did not include setting dates, using numerology, calender number crushing or any other criteria outside of what Jesus instructed.

[Darth Executor]

Also, liberal is not even close to synonymous with libertarian.

It is in the classical sense. Modern progressivism and libertarianism have the same roots, and aren't even all that different aside from economic issues.

Is this just a lame attempt to smear Dee Dee by guilt through association?

Maybe I'm missing some context since I don't see what Dee Dee has to do with this but she is now in favor of gay marriage and justified it by saying her conscience comes before God's commands. Her way of thinking is definitely to the left of most people here these days.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm not sure what you're arguing about Matthew 24:32-33 exactly. Are you saying that Jesus instructing his disciples to know the season means something else? Even a preterist could argue that Jesus was talking about the season of the 70 CE war. Or do you have a different interpretation of that all together? Instead of spouting off your ad hom, why don't you point out how I'm cherry-picking that passage? Paul didn't chastise the Thessalonians about future prophecy all together just because they were wrong; instead he gave them better clarity of the signs they were expecting and the ability to judge these coming events in a better light. The fact that the church has been wrong throughout history doesn't prove that futurism is wrong so I"m not sure why you brought that up in the first place. Assuming futurism is correct, then the solution is not to abandon future prophecy because the church has a history of getting it wrong but to understand the criteria of recognizing the signs more accurately in order to try and solve that issue, and that requires paying heed to Jesus' instructions which did not include setting dates, using numerology, calender number crushing or any other criteria outside of what Jesus instructed.

There's so much wrong here I don't know where to start. You're the one who keeps trying to bring up the "season." I suppose I should thank you for at least confirming my suspicion that you were leaning on those verses for that. Yet Jesus' talk about signs merely shows that the end is imminent, but not yet (vv. 6, 8).

Jesus never said anything about trying to figure out when He would return. In fact, he said that no man knows the hour of His return (twice, in the same discourse!), and that His return would be like the flood in the days of Noah (which no one knew when it would hit). Paul backs this up in 1 Thes. 5:12 by saying that His return would be like that of a thief in the night (another key that it will be unknown), which is in accord with Mat. 24:43. We are not supposed to "solve the issue." We are supposed to WATCH. This is true regardless of preterism or futurism.

[seanD]

There's so much wrong here I don't know where to start. You're the one who keeps trying to bring up the "season." I suppose I should thank you for at least confirming my suspicion that you were leaning on those verses for that. Yet Jesus' talk about signs merely shows that the end is imminent, but not yet (vv. 6, 8).

Jesus never said anything about trying to figure out when He would return. In fact, he said that no man knows the hour of His return (twice, in the same discourse!), and that His return would be like the flood in the days of Noah (which no one knew when it would hit). Paul backs this up in 1 Thes. 5:12 by saying that His return would be like that of a thief in the night (another key that it will be unknown), which is in accord with Mat. 24:43. We are not supposed to "solve the issue." We are supposed to WATCH. This is true regardless of preterism or futurism.

Sorry, OBP, but I'm just not following you. No one is arguing about the day or hour of his return, so that's irrelevant to anything I've discussed here (or a mere strawman). The parable specifies a short period of unknown time "when he's at the door" -- could be months, could be years, probably not days -- the leaves on the fig tree represent the signs he gave previously within the same context. When you see the fig tree leaves begin to bloom (the signs I just gave you beginning to happen), you know that summer is near (my coming is approaching). I've never heard anyone arguing anything differently, not even by preterists. The only real dispute about Matt 24 I've heard is whether "the coming of the Son of Man" in Matthew 24:30-31 is the paraousia or the 70 CE war. So I guess I'll leave you to your own interpretation

[Cerebrum123]

The idea that Satan is bound comes from passages like Matt. 12:29; that things will get better till Christ's second coming is an idea held by post-millennialists. Neither idea necessitates a belief in preterism. AFAIK, most or all preterists believe that Satan is bound, at least limiting his influence on the world. Preterists are generally post-millennialists or amillennialists (I hold to the latter), but not all post/a-mills are preterists.

That's actually the biggest reason I'm very suspicious of preterism. I've seen too many things that I feel can only be the direct result of Satan's activity(the rise of Islam, and a few other things), and it's not in any sense what I would call "limited".

[One Bad Pig]

That's actually the biggest reason I'm very suspicious of preterism. I've seen too many things that I feel can only be the direct result of Satan's activity(the rise of Islam, and a few other things), and it's not in any sense what I would call "limited".

IMO much is attributed to Satan's activity which is attributable to fallen human nature - and the binding of Satan doesn't mean all the demons are bound. Big-picture, before Christ Satan ruled the world, with worshipers of God reduced at one point to 8 people (the flood), then to another small number (the calling of Abraham), and although God called the nation of Israel, most of the nation had a bad habit of repeatedly falling into idolatry. After Christ, the church grew from the initial 120 people in the upper room to a significant fraction of the world's population; I'd say that can only have happened if Satan's activity here is severely curtailed.

[Cerebrum123]

IMO much is attributed to Satan's activity which is attributable to fallen human nature - and the binding of Satan doesn't mean all the demons are bound. Big-picture, before Christ Satan ruled the world, with worshipers of God reduced at one point to 8 people (the flood), then to another small number (the calling of Abraham), and although God called the nation of Israel, most of the nation had a bad habit of repeatedly falling into idolatry. After Christ, the church grew from the initial 120 people in the upper room to a significant fraction of the world's population; I'd say that can only have happened if Satan's activity here is severely curtailed.

Some of what I've seen is explicitly Satanic, not just lesser demons. I've seen what lesser demons can do, and know of what they still do. It's not being held back, it seems to be getting stronger lately. The chains and pit of Revelation are not descriptive of what's happening. It's a huge battle going on now, and it has been going on for a long time.
Islam is growing, and it is an explicitly Satanic religion. I believe Mohammed was directly inspired by Satan. Islam takes everything concerning an anti-Christ spirit, and then it multiplies it more than I ever thought possible. I came to this conclusion after doing as much study as I could reasonably do for years.
I've seen, experienced, and heard too much to accept the claim that Satan is "bound". Sure, he's being fought, but that's massively different than being bound. Lesser demons just don't cut it as an explanation.
The war may be technically won, but major battles are still being fought. Nations are still being deceived. That's not supposed to happen when Satan is bound as per Revelation.

[Adrift]

IMO much is attributed to Satan's activity which is attributable to fallen human nature - and the binding of Satan doesn't mean all the demons are bound. Big-picture, before Christ Satan ruled the world, with worshipers of God reduced at one point to 8 people (the flood), then to another small number (the calling of Abraham), and although God called the nation of Israel, most of the nation had a bad habit of repeatedly falling into idolatry. After Christ, the church grew from the initial 120 people in the upper room to a significant fraction of the world's population; I'd say that can only have happened if Satan's activity here is severely curtailed.

Interesting way of looking at it. What about those righteous Jews who were not numbered with the 120, but who had not heard of Christ yet? What about those Noahides and God-fearers like Melchizedek? Wouldn't that inflate the numbers a bit? Also, how do the demons get anything done without any leadership, or do you believe that they are currently in disarray? Why does Paul constantly refer to Satan in the present tense as though he's still an issue that Christians need to be aware of, or was Satan only bound at 70 AD, and not upon Christ's resurrection? Also, and this is just opinion/speculation, but it doesn't seem to me that much is attributed to Satan's activity which is attributable to fallen human nature, quite the opposite, it seems to me that much is attributed to human nature that ought to be attributed to Satan. There just seems to be too much orchestrated, and often disguised evil in this world to believe that it's simply the product of human nature, even with the help of the occasional demon here and there.

[One Bad Pig]

Some of what I've seen is explicitly Satanic, not just lesser demons. I've seen what lesser demons can do, and know of what they still do.

Honestly, I have no idea how you can accurately quantify that. All demons are more powerful than we are without Christ.

It's not being held back, it seems to be getting stronger lately. The chains and pit of Revelation are not descriptive of what's happening. It's a huge battle going on now, and it has been going on for a long time.

It's also possible that things are getting worse lately because Satan is no longer bound; Revelation does say that he will be unbound before the end.

Islam is growing, and it is an explicitly Satanic religion. I believe Mohammed was directly inspired by Satan. Islam takes everything concerning an anti-Christ spirit, and then it multiplies it more than I ever thought possible. I came to this conclusion after doing as much study as I could reasonably do for years.

Again, I see no need to invoke Satan to explain the rise of Islam. It's possible, but not necessary IMO, that Islam was inspired by demonic revelations.

I've seen, experienced, and heard too much to accept the claim that Satan is "bound". Sure, he's being fought, but that's massively different than being bound. Lesser demons just don't cut it as an explanation.
The war may be technically won, but major battles are still being fought. Nations are still being deceived. That's not supposed to happen when Satan is bound as per Revelation.

You'll have to point me to what in Revelation you're referring to.

[One Bad Pig]

Interesting way of looking at it. What about those righteous Jews who were not numbered with the 120, but who had not heard of Christ yet? What about those Noahides and God-fearers like Melchizedek? Wouldn't that inflate the numbers a bit?

Perhaps some, but I don't see any indication that the increase would be significant.

Also, how do the demons get anything done without any leadership, or do you believe that they are currently in disarray?

I don't believe they are in disarray, or without leadership. I do not equate "bound" with "unable to communicate."
[quote]Why does Paul constantly refer to Satan in the present tense as though he's still an issue that Christians need to be aware of, or was Satan only bound at 70 AD, and not upon Christ's resurrection? [quote]
I don't see any indication in Revelation that Satan was bound at the Resurrection of Christ; rather, it happened at some point after that. As a preterist, I would say that 70 AD is the most likely point it happened.

Also, and this is just opinion/speculation, but it doesn't seem to me that much is attributed to Satan's activity which is attributable to fallen human nature, quite the opposite, it seems to me that much is attributed to human nature that ought to be attributed to Satan. There just seems to be too much orchestrated, and often disguised evil in this world to believe that it's simply the product of human nature, even with the help of the occasional demon here and there.

It depends on who is doing the attribution. Many dispensational futurists attribute far too much to Satan IMO, whereas much of liberal Christianity appears to more or less ignore Satan altogether.

Most of this post, as well as my latest reply to Cerebrum, does not necessitate preterism, but merely a post-millennial or amillenial outlook.

[Adrift]

Perhaps some, but I don't see any indication that the increase would be significant.

Hmm ok.

I don't believe they are in disarray, or without leadership. I do not equate "bound" with "unable to communicate."

So like a second in command or higher ranking demons took over then?

I don't see any indication in Revelation that Satan was bound at the Resurrection of Christ; rather, it happened at some point after that. As a preterist, I would say that 70 AD is the most likely point it happened.

I see, so those Pauline passages that refer to Satan would not be applicable to post-70 AD Christians? Or are they still applicable, but with Satan's minions in mind rather than Satan himself?

It depends on who is doing the attribution. Many dispensational futurists attribute far too much to Satan IMO, whereas much of liberal Christianity appears to more or less ignore Satan altogether.

Ok.

Most of this post, as well as my latest reply to Cerebrum, does not necessitate preterism, but merely a post-millennial or amillenial outlook.

Got it.

[One Bad Pig]

So like a second in command or higher ranking demons took over then?

We're getting to a point where I'd simply rather not speculate.

I see, so those Pauline passages that refer to Satan would not be applicable to post-70 AD Christians? Or are they still applicable, but with Satan's minions in mind rather than Satan himself?

I'd have to look at each one in context, I think.

[seanD]

I think you can probably get away with arguing individual evil as being human in nature (unless we get to something outrageously evil like a serial killer mutilating and eating his victims or something), but that isn't so easy when it involves groups of humans collaborating with the evil, such as a government funded organization trafficking fetus body parts for profit, or organizations trafficking underage children for torture and pedophile rings.

[KingsGambit]

I think you can probably get away with arguing individual evil as being human in nature (unless we get to something outrageously evil like a serial killer mutilating and eating his victims or something), but that isn't so easy when it involves groups of humans collaborating with the evil, such as a government funded organization trafficking fetus body parts for profit, or organizations trafficking underage children for torture and pedophile rings.

Why? It seems ad hoc to set a certain level of evil and say "well, that has to be Satanic in origin."

[seanD]

Why? It seems ad hoc to set a certain level of evil and say "well, that has to be Satanic in origin."

Because a group engaging in secret evil is indicative of conspiracy theory and everyone knows human conspiracy theories never happen.