The
continuouis-historic view of prophecy is traditional because it is the view of virtually ALL Christians and Jews for Old Testament prophecy. That is, that prophecy is fulfilled steadily, as the era about which it is written gradually unfolds. An example is all of our understanding that
Daniel's lion, bear, leopard, and forth beast, were successive kingdoms that came to pass over hundreds of years in Daniel's future.
If our studies are to remain consistent then it is obvious that we should expect New Testament prophecy to be fulfilled in the same manner in which we understand Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled. To switch and become inconsistent in our view would obviously require a very compelling reason.
This continuous historic view was also held by the reformers and much of the church throughout the Christian era in regard to New Testament prophecy. This is reinforced - indeed was required for - their understanding of the "language" of prophecy of "each day for a year", that was well recognized by so many that we discover when we look to the former age and search their fathers:
Job 8:8 For enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers: 9 (For we [are but of] yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth [are] a shadow:)
http://brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=558.0The most stunning observation in regard to the two most popular eschatologies in the 20th-21st century church - futurism and partial-preterism - is that
these doctrines necessarily preclude consideration that Mohammed could be THE false prophet mentioned in the book of Revelation! This in spite of Mohammed's 1400 year record of success, with another 1/4 of mankind following Mohammed as I write, following him in a 7th century religion where the single most important fundamental requires denying that God has a Son (shirk).
The exact opposite of Christianity. Denying even the secular historical recognition of Jesus' crucifixion on the cross as perhaps the second most important fundamental.
The whole subject of the New Testament. It shouldn't come as a surprise then, that those who follow these two eschatologies must each consider the other to be virtually 100% wrong in regard to their understanding of the book of Revelation (after chapter 3) because a 1900 year gulf divides the two views.
While many Christians don't hesitate for a moment to use this day = year language of prophecy for at least 69 of Daniel's 70 weeks, they then don't hesitate to discard this language in regard to other days, weeks, and months problems assigned to us by prophecy, when this language doesn't suit their doctrine. The application of sound principles of hermeneutics require a consistent approach rather than picking and choosing that which suits our pre-conceived notions, while discarding verses that appear to contradict them.
