Curious as to what precisely makes Full-Preterism considered an non orthodox heresy?

[Daniel Martinovich]

I'm not asking as a Preterist. I disagree with them as strongly as I disagree with dispensationalists and pre, mid, post, ah= millennialists as far as the scripture is concerned. But I have never seen someone cite anything other than what they believe to tag them as "heretics." So it is something I have been curious about for decades.

 

[PloverWing]

If a preterist goes so far as to deny a future second coming of Jesus, then that seems to disagree with the Nicene Creed's statement that Jesus "will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead". I can imagine the preterist giving some figurative explanation of the Creed's statement -- that it's a description of judgment in the afterlife, for example -- but there is an apparent conflict there that would need to be explained away.

Aside from that, though, I don't see any orthodoxy/heresy problem with viewing most of the symbols of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse as describing events like the destruction of the temple and the collapse of the Roman empire that are now in our past.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Personally, I take no stock in the creeds. Not that they are wrong, or right. We have Bibles for a reason.
Now I would definitely say some things I have heard "radical" Preterists say is rank heresy. Like for instance, there is no life after death. That kind of cray stuff. But my question is more focused on what would be called "orthodox" Preterism.

Therefore, concerning your statement. I don't think that is unorthodox. Generally Preterists teach the "second" coming of Christ occurred in 70 AD. That is where I strongly disagree with them. Mainly on the grounds that there is no phrase in the Bible called the "second" coming. 70 AD was not the "second" coming but one of many prophesied comings of the Lord. A big giant day of the Lord yes. But only the fulfillment of the prophecies about it specifically but not even the fulfillment of the many other prophecies about other days of the Lord where Christ comes.

So I still have that unsatisfactory dilemma. When you cite a rejection of a future second coming of Christ then what you are really citing a rejection of a literal physical brick and mortar kingdom on this earth. But that is not unorthodox. That is the teaching held by most historical denominations.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Full preterism denies the present applicability of most of the scriptures inclusive of New Testament books as well, such as James and Peter and even the Gospels for the most part. And that all prophecy has been fulfilled and that Satan no longer exists. Just a thumbnail. It's waay out there imo. And of course within the arena there are also the typical wider range of sights that don't always gel with others in the arena, as with most sects. I'd say they fly mostly under the radar, group wise. Not too many "churches" in the classic sense.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by your first sentence. . I have talked to many Preterists over the years and to me their doctrine of all things fulfilled after 70 AD makes everything a little confusing. I just asked grok a couple questions about it.

Is there a somewhat of an "orthodox" full preterist set of beliefs or is it just kind of the wild west of teachings surrounding the idea that all end time prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD?

I'm not getting the the part about resurrection. outside of some radical elements. Do they agree on life in heaven or hell after death?

Someone just said they do not believe Satan exists anymore?

The link is groks answers. Pretty much what I figured. Aside from being obnoxious and childish. I am still having trouble with the idea that they are not real Christians.

https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1972125452916723720

 

[PloverWing]

Personally, I take no stock in the creeds. Not that they are wrong, or right. We have Bibles for a reason.

That's fine with me -- use whatever epistemological method you deem best. But the early creeds and ecumenical councils are what define "orthodox" vs "heresy".

If you're asking about "true" vs "false", or "Christian" vs "non-Christian", that's a different question.

 

[Aaron112]

I'm not asking as a Preterist. I disagree with them as strongly as I disagree with dispensationalists and pre, mid, post, ah= millennialists as far as the scripture is concerned. But I have never seen someone cite anything other than what they believe to tag them as "heretics." So it is something I have been curious about for decades.

It is better to avoid discussion about false gospels, false teachings, heresies and such ---- all those things being of and from the devil and it is dangerous like trying to get a footing in quicksand!

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

It is better to avoid discussion about false gospels, false teachings, heresies and such ---- all those things being of and from the devil and it is dangerous like trying to get a footing in quicksand!

Not sure it is better. I'm not having this discussion to learn about preterism. My beliefs about Bible prophecy are sealed up. I'm having it because I want to know if people who call them heretics really know what they are talking about. So far I'm seeing tribalism at play.

 

[PloverWing]

@Daniel Martinovich : May I ask what definition of "heresy" and "orthodox" you had in mind when you asked the original question? I understand those words to mean something like "out of bounds"/"within bounds" of the boundaries that the church has set for its theology. But I'm sensing that you mean something different by those words. Can you elaborate?

If you're referring to how you've heard opponents of preterism label that view, I'll note that some people throw around the word "heresy" when all they mean is "I don't like that" or "I disagree with that". Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

@Daniel Martinovich : May I ask what definition of "heresy" and "orthodox" you had in mind when you asked the original question? I understand those words to mean something like "out of bounds"/"within bounds" of the boundaries that the church has set for its theology. But I'm sensing that you mean something different by those words. Can you elaborate?

If you're referring to how you've heard opponents of preterism label that view, I'll note that some people throw around the word "heresy" when all they mean is "I don't like that" or "I disagree with that". Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

It’s both. That is why I often put those words in parenthesis; because orthodox and heresy are used subjectively,

Is there an objective orthodoxy and objective heresy? Yes, as taught in the Bible. But not in the creeds. Which by the way are also interpreted subjectively.

So for all practical purposes. I’m referring to those words in the sense of going to far, like you said.

 

[PloverWing]

It’s both. That is why I often put those words in parenthesis; because orthodox and heresy are used subjectively,

Is there an objective orthodoxy and objective heresy? Yes, as taught in the Bible. But not in the creeds. Which by the way are also interpreted subjectively.

So for all practical purposes. I’m referring to those words in the sense of going to far, like you said.

In that case, I'd say that the label of "heresy" isn't a useful one at all, especially when it comes to eschatology. The Bible gives very little specific detail about the end of the world and the inauguration of Jesus' kingdom, and what information it does give is largely in highly figurative language. Different communities of Christians have made many different guesses about what the Bible's apocalyptic passages mean, whether they're predictive of future events or descriptive of current events or a mix, and what exactly they're predicting or describing.

I don't think I'd label any of these guesses "heretical" unless they jettison the Christian message altogether. (Like, if you tell me that Fenrir is going to swallow Odin, I'll say that you've left Christian mythology and wandered into something else. ) I'd rather just list the dozens of different Christian eschatological theories, say with some humility that we don't really know, maybe say which theory you (or I) find most plausible, and leave it at that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm not asking as a Preterist. I disagree with them as strongly as I disagree with dispensationalists and pre, mid, post, ah= millennialists as far as the scripture is concerned. But I have never seen someone cite anything other than what they believe to tag them as "heretics." So it is something I have been curious about for decades.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

Acts 1:9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

1 John 3:1 Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. 2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

To me, it is a fundamental Christian belief that we should be "looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" who will "come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven" at which point "we shall see Him as He is" after "the dead in Christ shall rise" from the dead and are "caught up together...to meet the Lord in the air" with those "who are alive and remain" after which "we shall always be with the Lord". To deny this future hope that we all have is heretical, in my opinion. What is the hope of full preterists exactly if they think Jesus has already come and the passages I shared above are already fulfilled?

Full preterists believe that the resurrection is past. Here is what Paul said about people who believe and teach that...

2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.

 

[Jipsah]

Now I would definitely say some things I have heard "radical" Preterists say is rank heresy. Like for instance, there is no life after death.

What does that notion have to do with preterism?

Generally Preterists teach the "second" coming of Christ occurred in 70 AD.

Orthodox Prets, aka "Partial Preterists", do not.

When you cite a rejection of a future second coming of Christ then what you are really citing a rejection of a literal physical brick and mortar kingdom on this earth.

Somethhing no Orthodox Pret does.

But that is not unorthodox. That is the teaching held by most historical denominations.

For example?

 

[Jipsah]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by your first sentence. . I have talked to many Preterists over the years and to me their doctrine of all things fulfilled after 70 AD makes everything a little confusing. I just asked grok a couple questions about it.

Is there a somewhat of an "orthodox" full preterist set of beliefs

Orthodox Press arn't Full Prets. The OP position is simple, it it happened, it happened. No " didn't really happen", or "it didn't count'. Prophecy fulfilled is prophecy fulfilled if it doesn't jibe with your doctrine. Beast makes war agajnst the Church? Happened. Jerusalem surrounded by armies? Happened. The Mark of the Beast Required to Buy or Sell? Happened. Temple desecrated, pagan sacrifice in Holy of Holies? Happened. Temple razed to the ground? Happened. Taat's off the top of my head, there are others.

No, "Those didn't count'! They have to happen again!" Rubbish. If they happened, they happened. If your doctrine doesn't recognize that reality, fix your doctrine.