The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Sproul's Eschatology?

Does anyone know what Eschatological view R.C. Sproul holds too?

I've read in a couple of places that some people believe he is a preterist.

But I did not think he was, can anyone shed any light on the subject?

Thanks.

Dave.

From what I have read, R.C. Sproul, Sr. holds to a the Preterist view. This is NOT to be confused with the "Hyper-Preterism" held by such men as Tommy Ice, Ward Fenley, et al. Don't ask for validation of this from me because I can't remember the sources. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/stupidme.gif" alt="" />

I believe he describes himself as a "partial Preterist" as opposed to the "whole" or "hyper" Preterist view that Pilgrim mentions. His eschatology is clearly spelled out in his book The Last Days According to Jesus.

I read someplace that Sproul changed his eschatological position around 5 years ago. I think from an A-mil to a Post-mil with the catalyst being his conviction on the partial preterist view.

I might add that he quotes from a hyper preterist throughout the whole book. A very disapointing book.

I disagree with both you and Relztrah. I did not find the author's position "clearly stated" in the book at all. In fact it looks to me as though he took pains not to endorse any particular position, but rather laid out the various interpretations of prophecy down through history.

And I did not find the book disappointing reading at all. In fact, it was this book in particular, with it's (orthodox) preterist offerings to the reader, that put the final nail in the coffin of my former charismatic beliefs! I believe that the claims of charismaticism depend very much on a non-preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy. If one can demonstrate that we are "still" in the "Last days" that began 2,000 years ago, then one might use that to "prove" that Joel's prophecy (Joel 2:28ff, quoted in Acts 2) is still being fulfilled today. But from a preterist view, the "Last days" actually ended in AD 70 when the Olivet prophecy was fulfilled upon "this generation (Matt 23:36 and 24:34)," just as Jesus said they would be.

If the preterists are right (and I don't mean the hyper preterists), then the "Last days" were the last days of the Old Covenant - not the last days of the space/time continuum and all life on earth.... And if the last days are over, then so are the gifts which were covenant signs of the end of that covenant.

The book was a huge turning point for me.

I'd love to be persuaded to become Postmillennial, by the way. But at present I remain Amil.

In His care,
Robin

For what it's worth, I agree with Robin re: Sproul's book.

I have never heard a charismatic use this argument, and I have never heard a charismatic refuted by the preterist argument (except for perhapd yourself). Could you provide examples/sources? I'm a bit curious.

I must admit this got my curosity up. I found these quotes. More can be found here, IPA.

Hmm, it seems whoever wrote that hasn't interacted much with "traditional" cessationism. Basing your doctrine of signs etc. upon your eschatology seems a bit shakey to me- especially because preterism is wrong! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Could you clarify that just a tad Henry? Do you mean ALL preterism is wrong (hyper & orthodox) or just hyper?

I wrote:


And Henry asks:


Almost without exception, charismatics and Pentecostals are Dispensational premillennialists. Much of their theology depends on am almost completely non-preterist eschatology. Because Joels 2:28 says that dreams and visions, etc would appear in "the last days," then the last days must be the days we're living in now since "God has begun restoring the charismatic gifts to the church" in the last several decades.

In fact "the last days" ended in 70 A.D. when Jesus' Olivet prophecy was fulfilled, as Jesus said it would be, in His own generation.

In my charismatic days none of the usual cessationist arguments could dissuade me from my belief in the gifts of the Spirit as I understood them. For me, strange as it might seem, it was the study of history and the strength that history gives to preterism that forced me to confront the true Biblical nature of the sign gifts.

I dunno if I've adequately answered your question or not... but documentation of orthodox preterism is widely available including right here at the Highway. What I'm saying is that cessation necissarily follows preterism.

-Robin

Hyper-preterism is wrong, but orthodox (or "partial preterism," if you must) is well founded in the events of 70 A.D.

I prefer to use the word "preterist" to describe the historical position that Olivet was mostly fulfilled in 70 AD. Let those who wrongly claim that all prophecy is fulfilled call themselves by their proper label, hyper-preterist.

Kinda like Calvinism. We don't call ourselves "partial" calvinists in order to avoid being identified with hyper-Calvinists. In the same way neither do I think that orthodox preterists need to retreat from the word preterist as though it meant the same thing as the heretical hyper-preterists teach.

-Robin

I was trying to be a bit funny. No, I'm not a preterist, and I think that even "Partial" preterism makes hamburger of the Olivet Discourse. Is there exegetical reasons to interpret the whole thing one way, and then just change things when we get to Jesus coming back? Mind you, I don't think dispensational futurism does things any better. My view on these issues is a little eclectic: I'm an already-but-not-yet-ist. Everybody recognizes the already-but-not-yet principal, but I think it's place in these sorts of issues- like interpreting the Olivet discourse- is greatly unappreciated. Fred Zaspel has said similar things. I think we need to take a deeper look at these issues instead of seeing what pre-existing "mold" (preterism, futurism, etc.) we fit in to.


Robin, I appreciate your comments, but I'll just respond to this:

Your first sentence may be true. Your second sentence is a logical fallacy. It's like saying "All cars have wheels. Therfore, anything with wheels is a car." Stating a correlation between charismatic pneumatology and the eschatology they happen to hold does not prove a dependance. If all X is Y, Y is not by necessity X.

From what I can hear, preterism didn't tell you about the signs gifts, it just forced you to examine what the Bible said all along about the signs gifts. Would I be right in this?

I'm glad you're out of the Charismatic movement, I just hope you keep and open mind to these issues, and realize that for a lot of us, we stand with you when weighing on the Charismatics, but it has nothing to do with our eschatology.