Message from staff - all please read!

[ebedmelech]

Even partial Preterism is wrong. NOTHING in the Book of Revelations pertains to the past.

This is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve a response. However for starters...could you inform us how in the world the 7 churches addressed in Revelation is interpreted as 7 church ages...that's a really ridiculous point of futurism...especially the dispensationalist view.

Partial preterism is completely orthodox and defensible from the scriptures!

 

[Gnarwhal]

This is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve a response. However for starters...could you inform us how in the world the 7 churches addressed in Revelation is interpreted as 7 church ages...that's a really ridiculous point of futurism...especially the dispensationalist view.

Partial preterism is completely orthodox and defensible from the scriptures!

I would just put him on ignore, personally. John S is not unlike most trolls that come to CF and make ignorant comments like that just to get a rise out of people who hold those beliefs.

Folks like you and I know that Partial-Preterism is a historic and orthodox eschatological position of the Church, it's viable and it's permissible by CF rules.

 

[n2thelight]

One can be a preterist and a futurist at the same time.
they aren't mutually exclusive.
prophecies fulfilled in the past are but a shadow of things to come in the future.
there is no conflict with the Nicean creed.

In fact, I was of the impression that this was the mainstream view

However ,I like to refer to it as dual prophecy......

 

[granpa]

Preterism is not allowed to be discussed in this forum (or any other forum in the CO area) because it conflicts with the Nicean Creed. I have already closed two threads for that reason, and I will close any others I find that discuss preterism. Please refer to the forum's Statement of Purpose to know what can be discussed in this forum. If you wish to discuss preterism vs. orthodox beliefs regarding the eschatological end of the age, please go to Unorthodox Theology, where preterism is allowed to be discussed.

One can be a preterist and a futurist at the same time.
they aren't mutually exclusive.
prophecies fulfilled in the past are but a shadow of things to come in the future.
there is no conflict with the Nicean creed.

In fact, I was of the impression that this was the mainstream view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_fulfillment

The dual fulfilment of prophecy (British English) or dual fulfillment (American English) or dual prophecy or duality in prophecy or present and future application is the mainly Christian idea that some prophecies in the Bible have both a short-term and long-term fulfilment.

Examples include the Immanuel prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 which is understood as referring in its first fulfilment to the birth of a child at the time of Isaiah of a child who would be a sign to Ahaz of the impending destruction of Rezin and Pekah by Tiglath Pileser III, often with the associated interpretation that the child to be born is Ahaz' heir, Hezekiah and the maiden Abijah, daughter of Zechariah. The same reasoning is also extended to the Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace prophecy which occurs in the following chapter.[1]
In such examples Messianic dual fulfilment is often related to concepts of Messianic typology in the Old Testament.

Some commentators see a secondary fulfilment of the prophecies concerning the Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC) with the events of the Siege of Jerusalem (70).

Another area of perceived dual fulfilment is the overlapping fulfilment of short-term and long-term elements in the Olivet Prophecy.[5][6] Events such as the siege of Jerusalem, Antiochus Epiphanes' sacrifice of a pig on the altar and the destruction of the Second Temple by Titus Flavius are seen by some Christians as only partial fulfilment of Matthew 24.[7][8] The idea of dual fulfilment in this case is disputed by some Preterists

 

[Interplanner]

...OK, or do people here mean you are a preterist if you think Antiochus was the AofD? In that case, 'preterism' means before the NT, not things in the NT.

 

[riverrat]

...OK, or do people here mean you are a preterist if you think Antiochus was the AofD? In that case, 'preterism' means before the NT, not things in the NT.

You are a preterist and actually by the rules should not be allowed here.

 

[A New Dawn]

Here is the statement about how we are interpreting what will be allowed to be posted here.

Any response of a second coming of Christ already past will be considered full preterist and a violation of the SoP.

Hentenza is one of the advisors here and the decision was made on that level. If you believe that a second coming already occurred (either the coming in glory or a coming in judgment/wrath), then that cannot be discussed here. It will need to be discussed in Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussions (formerly Unorthodox Theology).

 

[Interplanner]

No, I don't think there has been either a 2nd coming or a coming in wrath. There could have been a coming, but the Father decided against it. There has been wrath against Israel, but it was not a coming of Christ. It might have been called a visitation, but that is usually seen as refering to the intentions of Christ's first coming.