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.