Replies

That's interesting, but it says nothing about the date of Revelation. All it tells us is that, perhaps, they accepted the Irenaeus report without question.

Would you argue that Victorinus' commentary on Revelation in general is accurate?

It's interesting that those who hold to an eschatology that can be verified over time, as we more farther and farther into the future, are so concerned about preterism. All you have to do is play a waiting game. If futurism is true then events will play out as you expect. No?

What I suspect is happening is that nervousness is setting in within the futurist camp. With every new book published and every new TV program about current events and Bible prophecy that proves to be wrong, the "faithful" of futurism become disillusioned and move to other, more biblically satisfying schools of eschatology. In some cases the sometimes connection between futurism and deficient soteriologies is recognized, and these folks move fully into the reformed/covenantal camp.

As I said, time is on someone's side. As a postmil I see the triumph of Christ and His truth in history. Futurism must give way.

In general, I would not be thrilled with any amill position, but it is higher on my list than some others.

Of course, the positions of Augustine, Victorinius, and Chrysostom on the AntiChrist/mos/apostasy being future is critical to preterism. It means that the early Christians were not clued in by the Apostles that ALL had been fulfilled.

We have Irenaeus' clear dating of the book, we have others who arguably came to the same conclusions as Irenaeus without relying on Irenaeus saying that it was a 90's AD book, and we have years of silence on anything that begins to resemble today's preterist dogma.

And we have full preterism being heresy.

And we have you, unwilling to state what are the absolute proofs of your preterist position. We also have the strange situation in which preterists are unwilling to present their view, but are always critics of other views.

I'd say that preterism is bound for the trashbin of history.

All it tells us is that, perhaps, they accepted the Irenaeus report without question.

Perhaps, but you've not yet established either that Irenaeus was indeed their sole source or that he was inaccurate or unreliable. Remember, Eusebius refers to a "they" who recorded the time of Yochanan's exile accurately, which implies more than a single source.

Would you argue that Victorinus' commentary on Revelation in general is accurate?

Irrelevant, since its not as if there's a more "accurate" preterist commentary from the same era in competition with it, nor is there a source from the same era that puts the date of the Revelation in the 60s.

It's interesting that those who hold to an eschatology that can be verified over time, as we more farther and farther into the future, are so concerned about preterism.

Dude, you're the one who keeps posting these articles. We're just pointing out that they and preterism in general doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If you can't handle the scrutiny, stop putting your stuff under the microscope.

What I suspect is happening is that nervousness is setting in within the futurist camp.

Ah, the classic argumentum popus psychologios: When you don't have a leg to stand on factually, start trying to divert attention to your opponent's supposed motivations (aka the Circumstantial Ad Hominem).