Why Christians should reject Partial Preterism

sovereigngrace said:

Is this past or future? What event does this refer to?

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

This is called political avoidance.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

Of course not! To do so would decimate Partial Preterism!!!

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

I have showed you that the NT forbids your fixation with the restoration with the old covenant.

For what purpose do you believe there will be a millennial temple?

You have not demonstrated that.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

I have showed you that the NT forbids your fixation with the restoration with the old covenant.

For what purpose do you believe there will be a millennial temple?

You have not demonstrated that.

Click to expand...

mkgal1 said:

There's no need for assumptions. There were plenty of answers in this thread already: When did the Old Covenant truly "disappear" and end?

The problem is, for one, this is YOUR framework......loaded with your presumptions about what the answers would mean. I don't view things in black and white with clear lines of distinction. There's a thread of God's grace running all throughout the Bible - there's ONE story of God's people being told. There are overlaps and, at the same time, marked events that "shook the worlds" and reigns of nations into something new - and then it started all over again. Things of God don't typically fit neatly into a list of 100 questions. There's depth......much more than can be expressed in questions asking "was this past or future....?" (not allowing for explanations, discussion, or difference of opinions).

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

There is only one temple in the New Testament. The temple is Christ and His body. There is no need for a physical temple since Calvary and the ripping of the curtain in 2. Is the cross not enough for you? Why do you need others sin offerings for 1000 years after the coming of Christ? It doesn't make sense. It is wrong. It is unbiblical.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

Where in Revelation 20 does it teach the re-introduction of animal sacrifices in a supposed future millennial kingdom?

Where elsewhere in the New Testament (the fuller revelation) does it teach the re-introduction of animal sacrifices in a supposed future millennial kingdom?

Where in Revelation 20 does it teach the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem in a supposed future millennial kingdom?

Where elsewhere in the New Testament (the fuller revelation) does it teach the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem in a supposed future millennial kingdom?

Where in Revelation 20 does it teach the restoration of the old covenant priests in a supposed future millennial kingdom?

Where elsewhere in the New Testament (the fuller revelation) does it teach the restoration of the old covenant priests in a supposed future millennial kingdom?

Why do Premils insist on promoting the restoration of a such useless, pointless, worthless, meaningless and redundant sin offerings?

Click to expand...

DavidPT said:

I don't see how any of this has to do with the point I was trying to make? My point had to do with the comings in Matthew 24, in relation to the trib of those days in that same chapter. The page you are on above is not the same page I was on, in regards to this particular matter.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

So, this mass slaughter of innocent animals in the temple in Jerusalem takes away the sin of your millennial inhabitants?

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

OK then, please answer these simple questions:

Jesus taught in the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew 13:24-30, “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, (1) Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but (2) gather the wheat into my barn.”

Verses 37-43 continues, “He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world (or aion or age); and the reapers are the angels. (1) As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world (or aion or age). The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (2) Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”

Is this past or future? What event does this refer to?

John 11:21-27 records: “Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.”

Is this past or future? What event does this refer to?

Christ had previously taught in John 6:39-44, 54, where He said, “And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day …No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day ... Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Is this past or future? What event does this refer to?

Christ tells us in John 12:48, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”

Is this past or future? What event does this refer to?

Romans 8:19-23: “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption (phthora or decay) into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.”

Is this past or future? What event does this refer to?

2 Peter 3:10-13 couldn't be clearer: “the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

Is this past or future? What event does this refer to?

Revelation 20:11-15, 21:1-5 tells us: “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.”

Is this past or future? What event does this refer to?

Revelation 22:3 tells us that the new heavens and new earth arrive “there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him.”

Is this past or future? What event does this refer to?

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

First of all, I am a Postrib Amillennialist. I am also an Idealist – meaning I believe Revelation consist of 7 recaps culminating in a climactic return of Christ.

Like Partial Preterists and Historicists, and other Idealists, I believe Daniel 9 has been fulfilled in and through the earthly Messianic ministry of Christ. Idealists also hold that a lot (but not all) of Matthew 24 Mark 13 and Luke 21 was fulfilled in AD70. For example, I believe the great tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 relates to the wrath of God being poured out on Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Saying all that, having debated with Partial Preterists over the years, and most recently on this site, I have many real deep biblical concerns about Partial Preterist teaching which I believe are dangerous, and which lead many into the heresy of Full Preterism. Much of what is advocated on this board by Partial Preterists is only a thin paper wall away from Full Preterism. Partial Preterists even freely quote their writers.

An unhealthy fixation with 70AD

There seems to be very little in Scripture that is literal or real in Partial Preterist thinking. Words that are clear in their meaning and context, and which every unindoctrinated objective Bible student would quickly understand are spiritualized away to carry no literal or physical meaning. Passages that are expressly referring to the glorious climactic coming of the Lord Jesus Christ are lightly treated and swiftly dismissed and conveniently relocated to 70AD. No text seems safe from their extreme form of spiritualization of Scripture.

In Partial Preterist theology the First Advent and the Second Advent take back stage to their obsession with 70AD. It is all about 70AD! It is all they want to talk about. In their mind, it is the focal event in history. It is the pivotal moment of the divine plan. Of course, this alone should be grounds to question the theory. But there are many other reasons.

Where Partial Preterists miss the mark is that they are captivated with the wrong event. They are fixated with AD70. In that, they stand alone in their fixation. The Old Testament is not so. The New Testament is not so. Genesis to Revelation is focused on Jesus Christ, His new covenant, His messianic rule, His climatic return and the introduction of His perfect eternal kingdom. The sacred pages point to our Savior and Lord. The Holy Spirit points to Jesus Christ. The Father’s blessing is upon Jesus Christ.

My biggest red flag is Partial Preterist's obsession with AD70. This fixation is alarming, unhealthy and plainly unscriptural. To them, it is the focal point of history. Little do they realize, in their preoccupation with this by-gone year, that they are overlooking and undermining the two focal events in Scripture and history – the First Advent and the Second Advent.

When you look in the Old and New Testament, the central emphasis of both is the earthly ministry of Christ and His glorious and majestic second coming. Christ’s sinless life, His atoning death and victorious resurrection were long-anticipated by Moses and the Old Testament prophets. It is also the focus of the New Testament. The glorious final majestic return of Jesus Christ is the final anticipated event in history that every believer has longer for since the fall of man. It is then that corruption will finally be banished and everlasting perfection will be introduced forever.

In the Old Testament, the saints of old yearned for the coming Messiah who would deliver His people and redeem them from their sin. His Messianic ministry ushered in “the last days” period.

Just like Premils are fixated with their supposed future 1000 years after the coming of Christ, and dump multiple unrelated Scriptures into Revelation 20, Preterists are similarly obsessed with AD70, and dump every and any text they find into the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple and the city of Jerusalem in AD70, as if it was the pivotal moment in time and eternity. No Scripture is safe. It is as if the Holy Spirit in the New Testament has nothing else to speak about but this passing fleeting event that was perpetrated by the Roman soldiers.

· Passages that clearly pertain to the cross (and the introduction of the new covenant) are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD70.
· Passages that clearly pertain to the intra-Advent period are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD70.
· Passages that clearly pertain to the glorious climactic coming of Christ are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD70.
· Passages that clearly pertain to eternity are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD70.

What they apply to AD70 is totally unbiblical and insane. They are indeed fixated with that date, whereas Scripture is fixated with the cross and the Lord's final return.

• They have the old covenant ending in AD70.
• They have the new covenant commencing in AD70.
• They have “this age” ending in AD70.
• They have “the age to come” starting in AD70.
• They have “the last days” finishing in AD70.
• They have “the last day” of “the last days” occurring in AD70.
• They have “the day of redemption” happening in AD70.
• They have “the coming of the Lord” arriving in AD70.
• They have “the resurrection” of the just and the unjust happening in AD70.
• They have “the judgment” of the just and the unjust happening in AD70.
• They have the old corrupt heavens and earth being replaced in AD70.
  
• They have “the new heavens and new earth” appearing in AD70.

This is absolutely ridiculous! Such is their obsession with this much vaunted year (AD70), that their advocates and websites can do nothing else but speak on its virtues.

Partial Preterists neutralize every possible future coming of the Lord passage in order to sustain their position. No text is safe. The only event they seem to see in the New Testament is 70AD. When you engage with them you quickly find that they are totally fixated with this innocuous date. There is such a delusion and duplicity here.

Their teachers

When challenged, Partial Preterists habitually hide behind the statements of their teachers, and are quick to advancing weblinks to their Preterist mentors. This tactic is normally found among the cults. This shows a distinct weakness in their position and an unhealthy reliance upon man. Like Pretribbers, it is a doctrine that must be taught to be fully gasped. This also shows how absurd many of their claims are, and how uncertain they even are with their own doctrine. A normal unbiased straightforward reading of Scripture reveals many clear second coming passages that show a literal climatic return of Jesus Christ at the end of the world. Partial Preterist teaching does not abide the scrutiny of Scripture.

Partial Preterism does not hold up to normal sensible hermeneutical scrutiny. They shamelessly force mystical meanings on literal texts to support their forced doctrine, rather than letting the Scriptures speak for themselves. They seem to have no regards for either the detail of the texts or the context of the setting. They refuse to acknowledge the countless repeated Scriptures that depict a literal physical future climactic coming of Christ in all His final majesty and glory.

The truth!

Repeated Scripture locates the replacement of the current heavens and earth with the new heavens and earth and incorruption at the second coming. Job 14:12-14, Isaiah 13:9-11, Isaiah 34:1-4, 8, Isaiah 65:17-21, Isaiah 66:22-24, Joel 2:3, Joel 2:10-11, Malachi 4:1-3, Matthew 24:29-30, Matthew 24:35-44, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-27, Romans 8:18-23, 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Hebrews 1:10-12, Revelation 6:13-17, Revelation 16:15-20, Revelation 19:11-16 and Revelation 20:11-15 shows us that this occurs at the second coming. This is indeed the end of time, the end of corruption, the end of the wicked, the end of sin, the end of death, the end for the devil. It is the beginning of eternity. It is the beginning of perfection. It is the beginning of incorruption. It is the beginning of a new arrangement.

It seems like whatever angle you examine the second coming it appears to be climactic, final and glorious.

· All creation is judged at the one final future coming of Christ.
· It is a perfect glorified age, which allows only perfect glorified inhabitants.
· Another proof that there will be no thousand years after the second coming is that time terminates with Christ’s coming. The age to come is eternal.
· It is an age that belongs exclusively to the glorified saints (the meek).
· Many Scriptures speak of the inter-Advent period as “the last days” (plural) and describe the second coming as “the last day” (singular). It is described as “the end.”

The detail that accompanies the second coming depictions give no opportunity for survivors. All the wicked are destroyed. The detail is climactic. The second coming is final and all-consummating. This current earth is completely regenerated.

Nobody seems to have any difficulty understanding the phrase “the beginning.” Every Christian knows that it is talking about the beginning of creation. It should be the same with “the last day” and “the end” – that is unless someone has a theological agenda to push, which requires that they dismiss or redefine the meaning of these simple unambiguous straight-forward conclusive statements in order to sustain their preconceived doctrine. In fact, I struggle to see how any Christian would have a difficulty with the whole concept of “the end.” It is talking about the end of this current corrupt arrangement and the beginning of the new perfect eternal state.

In order to get their theology to fit, Partial Preterists butcher the meaning and significance of these popular words in the New Testament. They explain them away to mean something they do not, in order to justify their prejudiced theology.

Partial Preterists take common linguistic terms that are easily understood by the unindoctrinated observer in any language to mean the opposite to what they actually say. For example, they do not believe that “last” means last. The English word “last” is taken from the Greek word eschatos and is widely accepted by all unbiased theologians to denote exactly what it says. The word eschatos means end, last, farthest and final.

All sensible and objective Amillennialists should recognize that “the last days” were introduced by the Lord Jesus Christ, and relate to this current Messianic period, which will end at “the last day” of “the last days” when the Lord comes again. Many Scriptures speak of the inter-Advent period as “the last days” (plural) and describe the second coming as “the last day” (singular). It is also described as “the end of the age” or simply “the end” – when Jesus returns to introduce eternity.

Partial Preterists do not believe “the end” refers to the end. The New Testament word from which we get our phrase “the end” is the Greek word telos which refers to the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. the conclusion of an act or state. It is the termination point of a thing. When Scripture talks about “the beginning” without any other additional words or contextual reason to identify it with a specific event, then most sane theologians agree it is talking about “the beginning” of creation. Whilst all sound theologians agree on this many are inconsistent when it comes to “the end.” The reason I believe is because it cuts across a lot of their end-time theology they have been taught. But I believe we should treat both sayings similarly. Unless Scripture specifically identifies “the end” with a particular event or matter like “the end of barley harvest” (Ruth 2:23) “the end of the sabbath” (Matt 28:1), “the end of the year” (2 Chron 24:23), “the end of the rod” (1 Sam 14:27), or “the end of the commandment” (1 Tim 1:5), etc, etc, then we should understand it as the end of the world (which is the end of the age).

When it comes to time, Scripture shows us that it has a definite beginning and a definite end. Before and after time we are looking at eternity. The beginning of time occurred when God created a means of measuring time – namely night and day. This revolves around His creation of the sun and the moon to provide distinct and calculable days, weeks, months and years. This takes us right back to creation. Time will end when Jesus comes in all His final majesty and glory. Time takes us from the commencement of “this age” to “the end of this age.” The term “this age” therefore applies to the whole period that covers time. Time finishes when Christ usher in eternity at His return.

This is seen by comparing the vivid and repeated biblical detail pertaining to “this age” and “the age to come.” This age is depicted as evil, carnal, corrupt and temporal, whereas, the age to come is depicted as perfect, renewed, glorified and eternal. This age involves mortal believers and unbelievers. The age to come belongs exclusively to the glorified elect. One must be worthy to inherit it (namely being redeemed). One must be fittingly prepared to enter it (namely through glorification). Sin, sinners, death and decay, rebellion and war, attend the whole duration of “this age,” whereas, the age to come is described as a perfected unending arrangement where perfected believers possess a perfected earth. All the ugly result of the fall is finally removed. Satan has been stripped of his power and banished to the lake of fire. Sin and sickness, corruption and the curse are now destroyed, never to race anymore.

Conclusion

Partial Preterism in my opinion is largely unbiblical. It gives Amillennialism a bad name. But what ultimately exposes it is the inspired Word of God. It seems like modern-day Partial Preterism is an extreme overreaction to the error of Pretrib. Its advocates should take a major step back and ascertain what the real focus of Scripture is, not what their teachers have taught them.

Click to expand...

keras said:

So are you saying that 2 Thess 2:4 and Rev 11:1 are unbiblical?

Click to expand...