Why Christians should reject Partial Preterism

[sovereigngrace]

So you think the LORD then went forth, and fought against the Romans on behalf of the Jews that were slaughtered at the time, versus what really happened instead?

You are going to have to explain your question better.

 

[mkgal1]

Because of your unhealthy fixation with 70AD and the coming of Titus, you fail to see that "the new heavens and new earth" and the perfect state are still to come.

And I'd say that, likewise, your obsession *against* 70 AD having any place in the fulfillment of prophecy is preventing you from seeing that He already has ushered in "the age of everlasting righteousness" as prophesied in the book of Daniel:

Daniel 9:24 ~ “A period of seventy sets of seven has been decreed for your people and your holy city to finish their rebellion, to put an end to their sin, to atone for their guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to confirm the prophetic vision, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.​

 

[mkgal1]

The law is still active, but can never save.

Really? So, in your mind, God expects all that's laid out in the Torah.....but it's impossible to fulfill it.....thus....it's impossible for salvation? That seems like a cruel and unfair god you've created in your beliefs.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Why does it bother you so much that I refer to those that are more experienced than I am and have had more time to study these things out? I share other resources because I, personally, am not a scholar nor do I even have any degree in theology. I'm showing my sources of where I'm getting my assertions. IOW....I'm citing my sources (which is NOT "plagiarism").

(1) If you do not understand what you believe then you are better asking questions or staying silent.
(2) I am not debating with them. I am debating with you. It is impossible to confront your mentors here with all the holes in their argument.
(3) We could all do that with our respective positions, but that would be unfair and show a lack of biblical knowledge on our part.

 

[mkgal1]

(1) If you do not understand what you believe then you are better asking questions or staying silent.

I've not said that I don't "understand what I believe". I'm merely sharing my sources and citing them.

(2) I am not debating with them. I am debating with you. It is impossible to confront your mentors here with all the holes in their argument.

I don't expect you to "debate with them". There's no need to go to them to point out the "holes" you see.

 

[sovereigngrace]

And I'd say that, likewise, your obsession *against* 70 AD having any place in the fulfillment of prophecy is preventing you from seeing that He already has ushered in "the age of everlasting righteousness" as prophesied in the book of Daniel:

Daniel 9:24 ~ “A period of seventy sets of seven has been decreed for your people and your holy city to finish their rebellion, to put an end to their sin, to atone for their guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to confirm the prophetic vision, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.​

Not so! Historicists and idealists both see the historic need for the removal of the outward facade of the already abolished system, removed at the cross. But the coming of Titus is more prevalent in your teaching than the coming of Christ.

Please list the Scriptures you believe literally referred to the second coming of Christ?

 

[mkgal1]

But the coming of Christ is more prevalent in your teaching than the coming of Christ.

Pardon?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I've not said that I don't "understand what I believe". I'm merely sharing my sources and citing them.


I don't expect you to "debate with them". There's no need to go to them to point out the "holes" you see.

This is a particular trait that is common to Partial and Full Preterists. It shows a distinct weakness in their knowledge of what the Bible really says on multiple subjects.

 

[mkgal1]

Please list the Scriptures you believe literally referred to the second coming of Christ?

We've played that game before and I don't wish to play it again.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Pardon?

Typo. Please reread.

 

[mkgal1]

This is a particular trait that is common to Partial and Full Preterists. It shows a distinct weakness in their knowledge of what the Bible really says on multiple subjects.

You've repeated that a multitude of times. I realize that is YOUR presumption - that it "shows a distinct weakness" in my knowledge. I'm not claiming to have it all figured out - that's not what I'm here for (to flex my knowledge and prove others wrong). I'm here for discussion (which includes seeing value in the perspective of others).

 

[DavidPT]

You are going to have to explain your question better.

I already did when I posted the following in a previous post. Which then adequately explains the question I posed here.

Zechariah 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

If verse 2 is meaning 70 AD, verse 3 needs to be understood like such. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against the Romans, as when he fought in the day of battle. Yet no such thing ever occurred in 70 AD. In 70 AD the Lord was not fighting on behalf of the Jews that ended up slaughtered. He instead allowed this to happen.

 

[sovereigngrace]

We've played that game before and I don't wish to play it again.

Exactly! You rigidly and repeatedly refuse to give me Scripture that you supposedly believe refers to the second coming of Christ, yet you're happy to quote multiple New Testament that refer to that climactic return and attribute them to the coming of Titus and 70 A.D. That is sad! That is telling! It confirms what I have suspected that your theology is more akin to Full Preterist than Partial Preterism.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I already did when I posted the following in a previous post. Which then adequately explains the question I posed here.

I also replied.

 

[sovereigngrace]

We've played that game before and I don't wish to play it again.

We are talking about scriptural truth here. This is not a game. You construe avoiding a simple biblical request as a game.

When I presented what you had told me as Partial Preterism, other Partial Preterists responded by attributing those beliefs to Full Preterism.

You mentioned 'Preterism', which is confusing to say the least as there are two very different versions of Preterism.

1) Partial Preterism is generally considered to be the historic orthodox interpretation as it affirms all eschatological points of the ecumenical Creeds of the Church. Some partial Preterists may believe that the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord were not historically fulfilled. (wikipedia)

2) Full Preterism differs from partial Preterism in that full Preterists believe that the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled all eschatological or "end times" events, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming, or Parousia, and the Final Judgment. (wikipedia)

I would like to correct and comment on your list of partial Preterist claims.

• They have the old covenant ending in AD70.
• The Old Covenant ended when the veil was torn in two, at the time of Christ death.
• They have the new covenant commencing in AD70.
• The New Covenant was established when the veil was torn in two, at the time of Christs death. AD 70 made the Temple desolate so that the Old Covenant could not be performed anymore. The Gospel needed to be spread before the destruction took place. This is known as the time of the Gentiles.
• They have “this age” ending in AD70.
• Yes, as "this age" was known as the Old Covenant. Ended at the time of Christs death and its purpose destroyed and made desolate in AD 70.
• They have “the age to come” starting in AD70.
• Started at the time of Christ death and completed on the Day of Pentecost. We now live in this age.
• They have “the last days” finishing in AD70
• According to Matthew, Jesus said it would happen in their generation.
• They have “the last day” of “the last days” occurring in AD70.
• The last day of the Old Covenant, not the last day of the world.
• They have “the day of redemption” happening in AD70.
• Jesus did this for us on the cross the day of His death.
• They have “the coming of the Lord” arriving in AD70.
• Yes. He came in wrath. This is not to be confused with His second coming for the Saints and the end of time.
• They have “the resurrection” of the just and the unjust happening in AD70.
• This is hyper full Preterism.
• They have “the judgment” of the just and the unjust happening in AD70.
• This is hyper full Preterism.
• They have the old corrupt heavens and earth being replaced in AD70.
• This is hyper full Preterism
• They have “the new heavens and new earth” appearing in AD70.
• This is hyper full Preterism.

You're really failing to understand partial preterist don't all view these things the way you describe. That's all I'll say on that. Many of the things you cite above are views of full preterism.

Looking at your list here:

That is the view of full preterism. The exceptions would be:


- The old covenant ended when Jesus instituted the new covenant. Jesus had the apostles preach the gospel preach in Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Remember what He told the apostles in Matthew 10:23.


- I think *most* partial presterist do believe the "end of the age" was 70AD. It ended the Jewish age...or better stated it ended God's covenant with Israel, which is the old covenant.


- Jesus "coming" in 70AD was a "coming" in judgement of Jerusalem/Israel. There remains final judgement

 

[mkgal1]

Exactly! You rigidly and repeatedly refuse to give me Scripture that you supposedly believe refers to the second coming of Christ, yet you're happy to quote multiple New Testament that refer to that climactic return and attribute them to the coming of Titus and 70 A.D. That is sad! That is telling! It confirms what I have suspected that your theology is more akin to Full Preterist than Partial Preterism.

.......and I've explained why. Your paradigm is black and white......with strict lines of separation, when I see the biblical story to have overlaps and common threads running through it, and many paradoxes that are not black and white. You can't take my beliefs and run them through the framework you understand - as we've already experienced - my beliefs seem "insane" (your word) to you. For that reason, I see no cause to feed into that. You seem to be on the search to only confirm your bias (prove your theory correct) instead of understanding a new or different framework. Unless a person has a sincere desire to see things differently - they won't.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You've repeated that a multitude of times. I realize that is YOUR presumption - that it "shows a distinct weakness" in my knowledge. I'm not claiming to have it all figured out - that's not what I'm here for (to flex my knowledge and prove others wrong). I'm here for discussion (which includes seeing value in the perspective of others).

I have simply tried to ascertain the true position of Partial Preterism, but that has been difficult. Your constant avoidance has been frustrating. I don't know anyone on discussion forums like this who would not be happy and willing to share their beliefs on the second coming, if they truly believe them. Why are you so uncomfortable with that?

 

[mkgal1]

We are talking about scriptural truth here. This is not a game. You construe avoiding a simple biblical request as a game.

No, this is more than a "simple biblical request" - you've proven that.

 

[sovereigngrace]

.......and I've explained why. Your paradigm is black and white......with strict lines of separation, when I see the biblical story to have overlaps and common threads running through it, and many paradoxes that are not black and white. You can't take my beliefs and run them through the framework you understand - as we've already experienced - my beliefs seem "insane" (your word) to you. For that reason, I see no cause to feed into that.

But you want the right to do that with everything I express. That is unfair! That is double-standards! If it is good for the goose it is good for the gander. It is time to practice what you preach.

So: please list the Scriptures you believe literally refer to the second coming of Christ?

 

[DavidPT]

I also replied.

If you are referring to the following, where in any of that does it even remotely address my point about Zechariah 14:3?

And, yes, the Roman Empire did represent all nations. Check the history books.