Preterism: Preterism is a system of biblical interpretation. Nothing more, and nothing less. One may believe that it badly misunderstands Scripture. One may argue that Romans 8, I Corinthians 15, the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, or the new heavens and new earth make full preterism impossible. Those are legitimate questions of biblical interpretation, and they ought to be examined carefully.
But that is precisely why some of the rhetoric surrounding the subject troubles me. There is an enormous difference between saying, “I believe this interpretation is wrong,” and saying that those who hold it embrace “a lie,” “a false Christianity,” and “a false religion without hope.” Somewhere along the way an interpretation of Scripture has ceased merely to be defended and has begun functioning as though it were Scripture itself.
And perhaps that is worth thinking about regardless of where we land eschatologically. Futurism is an interpretation. Historicism is an interpretation. Preterism is an interpretation. Amillennialism is an interpretation. None of those statements means that every interpretation is equally good, equally faithful, or equally defensible. It simply means that we should remember what we are doing: fallible people are attempting to understand an infallible Bible.
That distinction matters especially when our language moves beyond arguing that another interpretation is mistaken and begins declaring those who hold it to embrace a false Christianity. At that point we are no longer merely asking what Matthew 24, Romans 8, or I Corinthians 15 means. We are deciding how much of Christianity itself belongs to our interpretation of those passages.
And perhaps that is the real issue. Before we call another interpretation a false Christianity, we should be very sure that our own interpretation is demanded by the text. Strong language can make us forget that we are still dealing with interpretation. MPJ
Postscript: I really have no interest in eschatology at this point, and I’m certainly not arguing that anything goes or defending full preterism. What caught my attention was that the article repeatedly spoke simply of “Preterism,” without really distinguishing full from partial preterism, and then concluded that “Preterism is a false religion without hope.” That broad language is really what I was reacting to. So my point is still a narrow one. I think we ought to be very careful that we are not identifying Christianity itself with our own eschatological conclusions.