Thursday, December 2, 2010

High Five of the Day THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: A short preterist commentary on the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24

I really respect Mike Felker and the postings on his blog. We largely agree on many matters but on how to understand Matthew 24 we don't completely agree on. I appreciate his posting this video and I really liked the introduction he wrote:

In about 13 minutes (with as much detail as possible all packed in), this video contains a summary of the preterist understanding of Matthew 24. This theological persuasion holds that all of the events in Matthew 24 find their fulfillment in the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Of course, this may sound absurd to those who have never been exposed to such theology, as it did to me. But I would ask that you at least watch this video and consider some of the arguments that are made. I can't say that i'm one hundred percent on board or able to provide a thorough defense of this view, but so far its a position that i'm leaning towards

It caught my attention because John Loftus recently defined Preterism wrong and different than Mike did, who defined it right. Some take a view that most of Revelations was also fulfilled. Personally, I'm not sold that all of Matthew 24 and Revelations have been fulfilled yet.One view on this is debatable and can't be used as a "litmus test" for orthodoxy.

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: A short preterist commentary on the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24
Enhanced by Zemanta


  1. haha love that picture. I might just be tempted to go to the next "Prophecy conference" and stand outside with that sign. Anyway, just a word of clarification. No orthodox preterist (to be contrasted with hyper-preterists) holds that all of the book of Revelation has taken place. Though this may not have been what you meant, I just wanted to add that word of clarification. Thanks for the post brother

  2. Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I didn't want to make it sound like all Preterists think that Revelations has already taken place. That is why I said "some". Thanks for your post!