I have been teaching about the ressurrection and the judgements in the student classes lately. Since it really is prophecy we are talking about, and not history (at least most of us aren't calling it history), I have decided to teach all of the major perspectives on the end times (eschatology). Through the research I have been doing, I have come to understand a viewpoint I cannot accept; the preterist viewpoint.

I taught this viewpoint to the middle school class last night and they seemed to understand it. I also told them my reservations against it, too, and let them know that even though I don't agree with very smart people who do believe this viewpoint (Hank Hanegraaf appears to be at least a partial preterist), that doesn't make them any less our brothers and sisters under a Holy God, and the scriptures will eventually be revealed as 100% truth no matter what we think.

But let me pose the question... what good is it to give a prisoner on an isolated island (John on the isle of Patmos) a prophetic vision (circa 95-97 A.D.) about the desolation of abomination and the destruction of the temple and a whole host of other things, if they took place in 70 A.D.? That's not prophecy, that's remembering. and what about that stuff about buying and selling with the mark of the beast (Rev. 13:16-18) when there was almost no way to accomplish this feat until recent times? There are lots of other puzzling features to the preterist view. I have concluded that they are not quite worth spending a lot of time on when the holes are this big.

Which makes me wonder how Hanegraaf can hang on to it? He's a smart guy. Strange. Next week I will be teaching the Historicist perspective. I'll try to get a blip about that on here, too. Thoughts, comments, praises, rants... all are welcome.

T