Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
No, you asked about how historicism is not as focused on the cross as preterism, after I said no other view focuses on the cross like preterism does. So I am showing you most every other reference to doom and gloom in the bible ALSO points to the same judgment you agree was meted on Israel for the cross and rejection of Christ. But those judgments you do not agree point to AD70. That proves my claim that preterism focuses more on the cross in terms of judgment in the word than any other view..
|
Does it focus more 'on the cross'? Or more on the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70? ALL judgment against this world relates to the cross. Whether it took place in AD 70 or takes place a million years from now, it ALL has to do with what happened on Golgotha.
Therefore i do not see preterism as being 'more focused on the cross' than any other view. I do see preterism being more focused on AD 70 than any other view, however. While AD 70 was certainly significant, and prophesied, it is not the center of prophecy (as preterism makes it out to be). CHRIST is the center of prophecy, the testimony of Jesus is the 'spirit of prophecy'. AD 70 is a byproduct of the focus on BIBLE prophecy, not the big thing itself.
AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem being a CONSEQUENCE of the crucifying of the Lord of glory means explicitly that the FULFILLMENT OF JUDGMENT AGAINST JERUSALEM is not and CANNOT be the 'center' or 'focus of prophecy'. The consequence is not the same as the cause. Preterism is ENTIRELY about prophetic fulfillment in the first century with the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. When preterism entered the Campbellite churches it was known as 'AD 70 doctrine' and for good reason. Regardless of whether preterism is true or false, however, it is undeniably centered on AD 70. PReterism is the belief that prophecy was mostly or completely fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Everything else about preterism is secondary and supportive of that position.
Therefore, preterism is not 'more focused on the cross' than any other scheme of interpretation. Rather, it is more focused on 'the consequences of the cross which took place in AD 70' than any other scheme of interpretation.
In fact, using your line of reasoning, I could argue historicism is more focused on the cross than preterism, like this:
The cross was THE central event of all history. In fact, all history either flowed to the cross or flows from the cross, good bad and ugly. Prophecy is the foretelling by God of the key events throughout history,
therefore historicism focuses more on the cross because it views all history as being the prophesied effects and results of the cross. Preterism, however, limits all that to the first century only. Preterism puts prophecy into the first century only, therefore preterism focuses the cross and it's effects into one century, indeed, into just four decades, whereas historicism focuses the cross and it's effects into ALL HUMAN HISTORY PAST AND PRESENT AND FUTURE. Therefore, historicism is more focused on the cross than preterism.
I am not saying I would make that argument against preterism itself, but I will say it is a dandy and rational rebuttal to the claim that preterism 'focuses MORE on the cross than ANY OTHER scheme of prophecy interpretation.'
Threaded Mode
