Questions about preterism

frost · Jul 26, 2003

ByGrace said:
What I would like to ask is this. I understood that the tribulation would last around seven years.

Hi ByGrace,

GW can undoubtedly explain in more detail, but basically the preterist view on the tribulation is that it is past, being fufilled in the first century. Where does that leave us now? It's "the age to come, " or "the everlasting age." The main point is that the "end times" that everyone likes to think we're in now, was actually referring to the end of the Old Covenant (the Law) and took place in the first century, ending in 70 AD. There's a whole lot more to it than that and plenty of scripture to back it up, but that's the basic idea.

God bless

ByGrace · Jul 26, 2003

but then I dont understand what happened to the 1000 years of peace and all the cool stuff that I am looking forward to.

frost · Jul 26, 2003

GW said:
Not just promises of relief...but, in every case, the prescribed relief is said to come via the return of Christ to them to accomplish those things. We therefore have only two choices:

(1) either Christ returned and delivered on those promises to the first-century churches, or...

(2) He did not come again, thus failing to fulfill the promises He made to them, and thus making St. John a false prophet

Which choice do you prefer?

What is your answer?

As I said earlier, I have no problem believing that he came again in judgement as desribed in Matt. 24. After which I believe those churches did get the relief they were promised. I'm still not seeing, however, that that was all he was talking about when he (and Paul,) talked about his return. I suppose that makes me a partial preterist?

GW · Jul 26, 2003

GW:
Originally Posted By: GW

We therefore have only two choices:

(1) either Christ returned and delivered on those promises to the first-century churches, or...

(2) He did not come again, thus failing to fulfill the promises He made to them, and thus making St. John a false prophet

Which choice do you prefer?

What is your answer?

FROST:
As I said earlier, I have no problem believing that he came again in judgement as desribed in Matt. 24. After which I believe those churches did get the relief they were promised. I'm still not seeing, however, that that was all he was talking about when he (and Paul,) talked about his return.

GW:
So you agree that Christ did return to each of the churches of Asia Minor, right? Those churches were spread all over the empire, and Christ came to them at his promised return and brought them relief--he did this as well as bringing judgment upon apostate Israel.

Well, that answers your question about whether the second coming was restricted to Israel or not. I have shown that, while Israel was the hub of the tribulation/Day of the Lord at AD 66-70, there were ramifications for all of the empire.

FROST:
I suppose that makes me a partial preterist?

GW:
At the very least it makes you a partial preterist. To admit that Christ's return to His Church took place at the end of the Jewish age is a solidly preterist and solidly biblical stance.

Now, the challenge for all partial preterists is to try to remain only "partial." We full preterists were all "partial" at some point in our investigation. But, once we then searched the bible to find ANOTHER second coming of Christ, we couldn't find one. There is no second "second coming of Christ" taught by Jesus or the apostles.

ByGrace · Jul 26, 2003

Well, I dont think I buy it but then oh well. Not a salvational issue. We will all be just in the bosom of God and not worry about who was right or wrong some day. As long as we keep our eyes on Jesus then we will all be fine. God bless all the terists.

frost · Jul 26, 2003

GW:
So you agree that Christ did return to each of the churches of Asia Minor, right? Those churches were spread all over the empire, and Christ came to them at his promised return and brought them relief--he did this as well as bringing judgment upon apostate Israel.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "Christ came to them." Yes, their circumstances changed such that thier promises were met. But, did Christ "return?" I guess I need you to define return. I know you probably don't mean physically returning. But then that begs the question if not physically, why'd He say "return" in the first place?

GW · Jul 26, 2003

FROST:
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "Christ came to them."

GW:
Just follow the messages given to those churches and you will see. Here's a sampling...

Revelation 2:1,5
To...the church in Ephesus write... repent, and do the first works, or else I WILL COME TO THEE QUICKLY and will remove thy candlestick out of his place

Revelation 2:12-16
to...the church in Pergamos write: ...thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you...But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I WILL COME TO THEE QUICKLY AND WILL FIGHT AGAINST THEM with the sword of my mouth.

Revelation 2:18-25
unto the... church in Thyatira write...thou permit that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation...I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have, HOLD FAST TILL I COME.

Revelation 3:1-4
And unto...the church in Sardis write...I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead....strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God...hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I WILL COME ON THEE AS A THIEF, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

...and so on and so forth.

As I said, Christ came to them. The return of Christ took place in the first century.

frost · Jul 26, 2003

So Christ's "coming quickly" was what I was saying then. He did not actually return, but he worked out all the circumstances. He caused the earthquakes, plagues, suffering, bizarre heavenly events all from his place at the right hand of the Father. His "returning" was actually the promises being unfolded to them while He remained glorified in Heaven. So "returning" is indeed not really the best word for it (though it's the word the Bible uses.) Do you agree with that?

Still I must wonder, there must have been a lot of Christians that had no idea that it happened (indeed, the Thessalonians thought it already did happen.) I mean, the persecution continued in the Empire for hundreds of years, and the early church seemed to think the Return was still yet to come, even though it had. Just a hundred years or so later, the early church fathers never recognized it. How do you account for such a blunder? How could God allow his "new heavens and earth" to not even be recognized?

Justme · Jul 26, 2003

Hi GW,

This 'no second coming of the second coming ' bit.

I think this causes some confusion. Of course, the parousia was after the great tribulation of 70 AD, that was the second coming for all who slept etc... but the second coming for anyone who lives today is still future. The bible says the judgment comes after death, therefore for you and me that judgment occurs ,hopefully, quite a long time in the future when we die. The spiritual resurrection of all of mankind occurs at the death of each individual. That process had it's beginning at the parousia in or near 70 AD.

Is this not how full preterists see this?

Justme

GW · Jul 27, 2003

FROST:
So Christ's "coming quickly" was what I was saying then. He did not actually return, but he worked out all the circumstances. He caused the earthquakes, plagues, suffering, bizarre heavenly events all from his place at the right hand of the Father. His "returning" was actually the promises being unfolded to them while He remained glorified in Heaven.

GW:
The coming/return of Christ that happened with those churches of Asia Minor is the promised second coming/return of Christ as it was taught all through the NT. Let's be very clear that Jesus links them for us--the coming of Christ to the churches of Asia Minor was the same coming of Christ promised by the apostles and Jesus all throughout the New Testament letters.

--compare this--

CHRIST TO PERGAMUM:
"you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly and I will make war against them WITH THE SWORD OF MY MOUTH"

--to this--

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war...And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And OUT OF HIS MOUTH GOETH A SHARP SWORD, that with it he should smite the nations...And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which SWORD PROCEEDED OUT OF HIS MOUTH (Rev 19:11,14-15,21)

--next, compare this

CHRIST TO THYATIRA:
"you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols...I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts and I will give to each one of you according to your works."

--to these--

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." (Matthew 16:27)

"thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, Who will render to every man according to his works" (Romans 2:5-6)

--next, compare this--

CHRIST TO SARDIS:
"Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you."

--to these--

"Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch THE THIEF WOULD COME, he would have watched" (Matthew 24:42-43)

"you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh AS A THIEF in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you AS A THIEF." (1 Thess 5:2-4)

--and compare this--

CHRIST TO THE LAODICEANS:
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock"

--to these--

when ye shall see all these things, know that he is near, even at the door (Matthew 24:33)

James 5:8-9
for the coming of the Lord is near...behold, the judge standeth before the door. (James 5:8-9)

--

In sum, the coming of Christ to the churches of Asia Minor was the same coming of Christ promised by the apostles and Jesus all throughout the New Testament letters.

GW · Jul 27, 2003

FROST:
So "returning" [i.e.,Christ's "returning"] is indeed not really the best word for it (though it's the word the Bible uses.) Do you agree with that?

GW:
The Hebrews understood the the comings of Jehovah in OT times in exactly this sense as we are discussing for the coming of Christ. Jehovah came multiplied times during the OT period (586BC, for example), and the Hebrews prophets labeled those judgment events as the "Day(s) of the Lord." The apostles, believing the ascended Christ was fully equal with the Father, therefore call the AD 70 apocalypse the "Day of Christ," ascribing to Christ those divine abilities and powers of judgment which were formerly only ascribed to Jehovah the Divine Warrior, Lord of Hosts.

Now, in all those OT comings of Yahweh, the sense is not that Yahweh was physically seen shooting his bow and arrows and leading armies in marches to battles and coming on clouds (Isa 19:1-2), even though the prophetic descriptions all read that way. Rather, the catastrophic events foretold by the prophets came to pass as predicted, for Jehovah's invisible appearing/Presence accomplished them. So also was the case with the coming of Christ--it was "in the glory of the Father" (Matthew 16:27-28), it was a "Day of the Lord" (as that was understood by the Hebrew prophets).

FROST:
Still I must wonder, there must have been a lot of Christians that had no idea that it happened

GW:
And this is exactly as was the case with the Jehovah comings (Days of the Lord) in the Old Testamental period. Don't get me wrong: when a whole nation or empire goes away shortly after the prophets say it will happen at God's coming down, then all human history sees it. But this does not mean Jehovah is physically seen doing it (even though the prophets understood). And, in all fairness, both Emperor Titus and Josephus believed God had carried out the events in which they both were live actors--they explicitly said so.

FROST:
(indeed, the Thessalonians thought it already did happen.)

GW:
And, this fact tells us that they had a very different understanding of the second coming than the "world-ending" concept which is popularly taught in our churches today. In the mind of the Thessalonians, the Day of Christ had come around the 50s AD, and the universe just went on as expected.

Jesusmyfriend · Jul 27, 2003

Preterism is deadly error. But one nice thing about it those that believe it at Christ's coming will have the privledge to see how wrong they were from Jesus himself.

GW · Jul 27, 2003

JUST ME:
This 'no second coming of the second coming ' bit.

I think this causes some confusion. Of course, the parousia was after the great tribulation of 70 AD, that was the second coming for all who slept etc... but the second coming for anyone who lives today is still future.

GW:
There are eternal implications for a fulfilled second coming in history, yes. There is, however, no second coming of the second coming. That event, like the Cross, is past in historic time. And, just like the Cross, the Parousia has brought eternal, covenantal change.

JUST ME:
The bible says the judgment comes after death, therefore for you and me that judgment occurs ,hopefully, quite a long time in the future when we die. The spiritual resurrection of all of mankind occurs at the death of each individual. That process had it's beginning at the parousia in or near 70 AD.

GW:
Right. Christ has not ceased to be the Judge over "the living and the dead" (Romans 14:9). Christ, the final ADAM, has become the ruler of a kingdom with no end (Isa 9:6-7), and "all live unto him" as with Jehovah (Lk 20:38). For sure, the resurrection had eternal implications for the dead. Indeed, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from now on: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they rest from their labours; and their works follow them!" (Rev 14:13).

frost · Jul 27, 2003

Okay, how is it that someone with 14 posts has 9609 blessings?

kimber1 · Jul 27, 2003

okay, i have a question! first i have to say I'm a Baptist and believe in the rapture adn the tribulation is still yet to come. Someone else asked this earlier adn it was never really totally answered. If Christ has already come back what happened to the 1000 years of peace? what happened to Christ coming back to earht to reign? Why is there still sorrow and pain when God said He would wipe away every tear and there would be no more sadness?

Jesusmyfriend · Jul 27, 2003

Blessing are good, I was killed in the board crash. Now I am raised anew with extra blessings.

frost · Jul 27, 2003

kimber1 said:
okay, i have a question! first i have to say I'm a Baptist and believe in the rapture adn the tribulation is still yet to come. Someone else asked this earlier adn it was never really totally answered. If Christ has already come back what happened to the 1000 years of peace? what happened to Christ coming back to earht to reign? Why is there still sorrow and pain when God said He would wipe away every tear and there would be no more sadness?

Good questions kimber1. I'd also like to know about the 1000 years of peace mentioned in Revelation. As to the sorrow and pain, I think full preterists would say (and correct me if I'm wrong,) that even in the "new heavens and earth," I.E., the new covenant, there is still sin due to man's fallen nature.

Revelation 22
14"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

"Outside," refer to those who do not accept Christ.

Justme · Jul 27, 2003

Hi GW,

Great. I had the understanding that the heavenly second coming was at personal death for probably 40 years before I heard the word preterism.

I have had little to argue against in preterist articles I have read.

Thanks, and you do very well pointing out the biblical truth.

Justme

nikolai_42 · Jul 28, 2003

frost said:
Hello everyone. I thought it would be nice to have a new thread for questions about preterism. The only thing I ask is that it does not digress into an attempt to refute preterism or turn into a debate over preterism vs. futurism (there are plenty of threads for that already.) Honest questions only please.

God bless

One question I have is: Do full preterists take any form of the Lord's Supper?

GW · Jul 28, 2003

NIKOLAI:
One question I have is: Do full preterists take any form of the Lord's Supper?

GW:
They should, and most do. But, just like futurists (excepting Catholics), many don't deem it as having necessary import, which is the common protestant notion going back to the 1500s.

I hold a high view of the Eucharist as an essential participation in Christ's covenant. It is a covenantal rite, it is the chief act of worship celebrating that we are one body, it declares that we are married to Christ/God, and it affects the life and sanctification of the believer by the Holy Spirit.

Agape,

Questions about preterism

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Active Member

mean people suck

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads