Why Christians should reject Partial Preterism

[sovereigngrace]

Whether we like it or not, we are all partial Preterists and partial Futurists as well! The heresy lies in the extremes of these 2 positions. That is why I prefer to call myself a 'Historicist' but I have to admit Historicism has had its share of heretics.

So, now I call myself a 'new-style Historicist.' Very rare.

I agree. I totally understand the the labels issue. But names denote a lot in Christian circles. They make a statement. Speaking freely about the "rapture" connects you with a lot of Dispy baggage. The 'catching away' seem a wiser term.

 

[Messenger 3k]

Why would there be a total disconnect like that?

Because they're trying too hard.

 

[sovereigngrace]

If you are an Amil, you are a partial preterist. If you believe any part, but not necessarily all, of the olivet discourse was fulfilled in the 1st century, you are a partial preterist.

So, are you a partial futurist? You have indicated that you believe in a future coming of Christ and a future resurrection.

 

[DavidPT]

lets look at it chronologically. The day described is a day when Jerusalem is being overrun and half of the city is taken captive; now this invasion will certainly encompass more than a day but on a day when it is dark in the morning and light at night the LORD comes with His saints. Now this is certainly a single day. On that day the Mt of Olives splits in two and a river forms. That is one day. The enemies of the LORD are melted. One day as described many places. The LORD is now king over the earth; the transfer of power is when the LORD comes. Satan is bound and AC and False prophet are thrown into the fire. All the same day. In that day they will say the LORD is one. Now this is clearly Jesus and who is saying this? Israel says the LORD is one and now Jesus is clearly revealed as Joseph was to His brothers. They are confessing Jesus is LORD. The nations which are left from that time onward will need to keep the feast of Tabernacles or get no rain. This shows life continuing on earth after this great day of transition.

Thanks for explaining further. In that case, I myself see your point about a single day and tend to agree after all.

 

[sovereigngrace]

When a person initially dies, there is no such thing as their soul has died then. Only their body has died. The text in Revelation 20:4 indicates the following----and I saw the souls of them--- and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Obviously what is meant, since these in verse 4 had literally physically died at some point,
when the text says---and they lived---it is meaning as in again. That only makes sense if this is meaning a resurrection unto bodily immortality. And if it's meaning a resuurection unto bodily immortality, then that only makes sense if there is the 2nd coming of Christ first. What doesn't make sense is reigning as disembodied souls with Christ a thousand years in heaven. Heaven doesn't go by earthly time. A thousand years are only relevant to something earthly. What is going on here then, Christ and His bodily resurrected saints are governing those unsaved of the nations spared at His 2nd coming, with a rod of iron, thus making the scene the earth.

And besides, the following also proves it.

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

No one is being surrounded in heaven, they are being surrounded on the earth. There is zero connection with verse 4 with that of verses 7-8, if verse 4 the scene is heaven, but in verses 7-8 the scene is the earth. Why would there be a total disconnect like that?

They are depicted in disembodied terms because that is their current state. They do not have bodies. They are waiting for the general resurrection of Christ's coming.

 

[sovereigngrace]

No Kimosabe, it's aligning scriptures with scriptures.

You're are merely throwing irrelevant scriptures around like a dice and hoping they land on something favorable.

It seems like you have no rebuttal. I will take that as an admission that my statements stand unchallenged biblically.

Don't be funny. How could John have being describing a current reality (in his time) with future tenses?.

Revelation 20:6,

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be (not they are) priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign (not are reigning) with him a thousand years. (KJV)



Don't give me Greek renderings or weak's concordance. Align scriptures with scriptures for me.

Obviously you didn't read my post, as you fail to rebut one single point. I will therefore repeat:

John is describing a current reality in Revelation 20:6. It says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

The first resurrection is Christ's resurrection that we partake in when we are born again. Because we partake in Christ's resurrection (the first), we are spared the second death that comes with the bodily resurrection at the Second Coming. Contrary to what Premils argue, this is absolute unequivocal corroborative proof that Christ is indeed "the first resurrection" in time and in importance.

The Greek for “that hath part” is echo méros. The Greek verb echo correctly interpreted “that hath” in the King James Version is written in the present tense and in the active voice. Therefore, we can view the relevance and vitality of “the first resurrection” as being both current and ongoing. Christ’s victory over death is not simply a past event that has no active bearing upon what we are today; it is ongoing reality in the lives of God’s people. The Greek word translated “part” in the text is the word meros meaning share, allotment or portion. This reading tells us that all those that have come to the joy of saving faith in Christ have become partakers in the resurrection life, and through this will escape the horrors of the second death – eternal wrath.

This is supported by Revelation 2:11, which similarly says: “He that overcometh (present active particle) shall not be hurt of the second death.”

Revelation 2:11 and Revelation 20:6 mirror each other. The reason being they are speaking about the same reality in the same age – spiritual victory in this current age. Like Revelation 20:6, this is speaking about a current spiritual state (salvation) that allows the Christian to escape eternal punishment. It is the same message in each passage because we are looking at the same author.
The word "overcometh" here is actually written in the present active particle meaning it relates to the here-and-now. It is an experience that is realized in life. When you have "eth" in the KJV it means it is a present reality.

John was caught up to heaven to see what was happening in the here-and-now. He also saw past and future events. Future things were given in a future tense; past things in the past tense and current things were given in the present tense. What is more, please see John's MO at presenting salvation alone as man's only means of victory over eternal punishment. Nowhere does he present the physical resurrection of the just as that event. The reason is that (1) it doesn't make sense and (2) it wouldn't include all the elect.

There is no contradiction in the tenses. Revelation 20:6 shows (what we all know) that salvation must come first before we receive power, authority and reign. That is why "hath part" is in the present tense, and "they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years” is future. It is demonstrating sequence. After salvation comes heavenly power and victory over everlasting punishment.

Now this is trying too hard. I'm just dumbfounded.



This ought to be interesting...

How is Revelation 20 happening now?

Let us start with basics:

The Greek word for "first" (as in first resurrection) is protos. It is a contracted superlative meaning foremost (in time, place, order and/or importance). So, which is the "first" (or protos) resurrection?

Which is the foremost resurrection in time?

Which is the foremost resurrection in place?

Which is the foremost resurrection in order?

Which is the foremost resurrection in importance?

Who is "the first resurrection" in Acts 26:23?

Who is "the firstborn from the dead" in Colossians 1:18?

Who is "the firstfruits of them that slept" in 1 Corinthians 15:20?

Who is "first begotten of the dead" in Revelation 1:5?

 

[DavidPT]

They are depicted in disembodied terms because that is their current state. They do not have bodies. They are waiting for the general resurrection of Christ's coming.

Per your position, show how Revelation 20:4 connects with Revelation 20:7-9. Verse 7 says this----And when the thousand years are expired---obviously meaning these same thousand years mentioned in verse 4.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Per your position, show how Revelation 20:4 connects with Revelation 20:7-9.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Be more specific.

 

[mkgal1]

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

The SOP for this forum states this about the idealist approach:

Idealism: (also called the spiritual approach, the allegorical approach, the nonliteral approach, and many other names) in Christian eschatology is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as symbols.​

 

[DavidPT]

Be more specific.

I added to that post while you had made this one. Does that help, or do I need to still be more specific?

 

[sovereigngrace]

The SOP for this forum states this about the idealist approach:

Idealism: (also called the spiritual approach, the allegorical approach, the nonliteral approach, and many other names) in Christian eschatology is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as symbols.​

And?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I added to that post while you had made this one. Does that help, or do I need to still be more specific?

The question is broad. I genuinely do not know what you're looking.

 

[mkgal1]

The SOP for this forum states this about the idealist approach:

Idealism: (also called the spiritual approach, the allegorical approach, the nonliteral approach, and many other names) in Christian eschatology is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as symbols.​

And?

From what I'm reading (linked) it seems that another name for "idealism" is panpsychism. With your focus on the material things - you may want to rethink that label as well. ISTM that idealism falls closer in line with Full Preterism than anything else.


Dictionary of Paul and His Letters

Wiki : Idealism (Christian eschatology) In the context of Christian eschatology, idealism (also called the spiritual approach, the allegorical approach, the nonliteral approach, and many other names) involves an interpretation of the Book of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as symbolic.

Bible Study Tools: Idealists have much in common with preterists in that they avoid an understanding of the book of Revelation which would seem to be describing future events. Here again, there is an overemphasis on the readers of John’s day ~ 12.3. Idealist Interpretation Commentary - A Testimony of Jesus Christ

Quoting from link: The philosophy of idealism finds no biblical compatibility. One clear point of demarcation begins in the first verse of the Bible, where God creates the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). That there are existing, physical, mind-independent objects is obvious from the passage. Moreover, the remainder of Genesis chapter 1 teaches that physical things were made before any human existed to perceive them. The Bible is clear that Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead. That God created man with both material and immaterial aspects speaks to the relevance of both in the life of man now and in the everlasting state (Genesis 2:7; Revelation 21:1—22:5). The Bible also does not teach or imply any unreachable distance between the knowing subject and the object known. Quite the opposite. For example, Psalm 19 tells everyone that the "heavens declare the glory of God." It is not as if the glory of God is made clear to some and not others. Just because one person might be colorblind does not mean that there is no color. The star looks yellow to one person and white to another, but this does not mean there is no star observed and no discernable objective reality. Romans 1:18–20 tells us that God is known by all through His effects; by creation we know there is a divine Creator. ~ What is the definition of idealism?

 

[DavidPT]

Be more specific.

If it's not those living and reigning with Christ a thousand years, that are being attacked and surrounded in verses 7-9, then who is being attacked and surrounded in verses 7-9? And if those in verse 4 are not even relevant to verses 7-9, why did John bother bringing them up to begin with then?

 

[DavidPT]

The question is broad. I genuinely do not know what you're looking.

Sorry. Try my post before this one then. Maybe that will help clarify what I'm seeking in particular.

 

[sovereigngrace]

From what I'm reading (linked) it seems that another name for "idealism" is panpsychism. With your focus on the material things - you may want to rethink that label as well. ISTM that idealism falls closer in line with Full Preterism than anything else.


Dictionary of Paul and His Letters

I do not know who wrote that, but it is not a standard or generally accepted apt definition. Idealism simply refers to viewing Revelation as 7 recaps. They see Revelation and the rest of the NT as an ongoing historical fulfillment between the First Advent and the Second. They view Revelation as containing literal and figurative detail, like the rest of Scripture. That is their position. Why not ask before you throwing out false charges.

Anyway, this is rich coming from someone who refuses to present any Scripture proving a future second coming of Christ and a physical resurrection. I will try again:

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

Can you please list the scriptures that you believe prove a literal physical future resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked?

When did/does the dead in Christ get their new physical bodies?

 

[Messenger 3k]

It seems like you have no rebuttal. I will take that as an admission that my statements stand unchallenged biblically.

How exactly?

Are you a dance instructor?

I've countered your erroneous view with three simple questions you've skillfully danced around.

1. If Christ started reigning about 2000 years ago, how come Revelation 20 identifies it as a thousand years only?

2. When exactly does Christ begin reigning? Two days after His death? Or in Revelation 20?

3. How is Revelation 20 happening now? Where's the mark of the beast? Where are those who didn't take it? When did they resurrect?

I can break down my questions some more if you have issues with my analysis.

No long articles. No Greek renderings. No weak concordance.

Simple answers for simple questions.

I'm waiting.

 

[mkgal1]

I do not know who wrote that, but it is not a standard or generally accepted apt definition. Idealism simply refers to viewing Revelation as 7 recaps

Show me some support for that, then, because all I'm finding (including the SOP for this forum) is that idealism is a spiritualized version of Revelation......never interpreting it to have any physical/material fulfillment - that it is ALL symbolism only.

ETA: Jonathan Edwards was an idealist/monist: The Ashgate Research Companion to Theological Anthropology From that link ~ Dualists hold that humans consist of two basic parts or ingredients—soul and body, or spirit and matter—and many affirm the metaphysical possibility of the soul or person existing without the body after death. Monists counter that humans consist of only one basic ingredient which constitutes or generates the whole person—body and soul. But monists disagree about the basic ingredient—whether it is immaterial (idealist, spiritualist, and personalist monism), material (physicalism and emergentism), or neither purely immaterial nor material but generating both soul and body (neutral and psychophysical monism). With respect to the afterlife, immaterialism is the only kind of monism which can readily affirm disembodied existence. These kinds of dualism and monism are the main options in philosophical anthropology. Most of them are currently endorsed by Christian academics, but versions of dualism, psychophysical monism, and non-reductive materialism are the main contenders. ~ The Ashgate Research Companion to Theological Anthropology



Classical idealism
Idealism as a form of metaphysical monism holds that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being. It is monist because it holds that there is only one type of thing in the universe and idealist because it holds that one thing to be consciousness ~ Wiki

 

[mkgal1]

That is their position. Why not ask before you throwing out false charges.

I'm just showing you that's all I've found - and that is how it's defined in the SOP. We can't just make up our own definitions. I've not seen it defined one time to be about recaps. So you are putting that assertion forward - you would need to be the one to back it up.

 

[claninja]

You can believe all that and if you believe antichrist is future, then you are a partial futurist.

Is there an official theological term known as partial futurism? Wouldn’t that just be the same as partial preterism? Kind of like is the glass half full or half empty kind of thing