Why Christians should reject Partial Preterism

[klutedavid]

Your form of Partial Preterism is only a thin paper wall away from Full Preterism. It is far from balanced. To say the following is balanced is erroneous and absurd, and a misrepresentation of scriptural truth.

• 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.

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)

 

[DavidPT]

Jesus said "This generation". Not, the next generation or a future generation! How simple is that?

One thing we should all agree on, when Jesus spoke those words, He was predicting a time in the future. Whether that time in the future was meaning in their lifetimes or not, that is debatable, though it shouldn't be. When looking at that statement in the contexts surrounding it, and looking at it now in hindsight, the fact His 2nd advent never occurred in the 1st century, it should be plainly obvious He wasn't meaning in their lifetimes by that statement. Of course though when you have some who deny the 2nd advent can be found in the Discourse to begin with, what is plainly obvious to some of the rest of us is not going to be plainly obvious to them.

 

[klutedavid]

When one steps back from the obsessive and doomed-to-failure approach of trying to make sense of the convoluted end-times passages in Mark, Matthew and Luke, as well as Revelation as a whole, I don't think it's difficult to understand what was going on.

Yes, I'm sure Jesus did speak of a future return and the importance of always being ready. But the historical reality is that Mark, Matthew and Luke were all written during or within a reasonable time after the Neronian persecution and the fall of the temple. These were cataclysmic events that certainly would have appeared like the end times (or the ushering in of the end times) to Christians and Jews alike. By far the most plausible explanation is that these events have been inserted into Jesus' mouth in a somewhat veiled way because he obviously would have been speaking some 30-40 years before the events themselves. They are a pseudo-Jesus speaking to the people (the "generation") who have experienced the Neronian persecution and the fall of the temple and who continue to be persecuted as the Gospels and Revelation are circulating.

There is no question that the Gospel writers, Paul, the author of Revelation and presumably all first century Christians understandably thought the end was imminent. They were simply wrong. It's far less clear that Jesus was wrong, because I strongly doubt he made the "this generation shall not pass away" statement at all. By far the most reasonable explanation is that this is a later insertion for the reasons set forth above.

The end-times passages are a convoluted mess because they overlay what was happening at the time they were written on top of what Jesus actually said during his ministry. Yes, there will be a Second Coming at some entirely unknown and unpredictable future date and we should all be ready at every moment, but all the rest can be plausibly explained only by the preterist position. The end-times stuff that dominates the evangelical airwaves is just nonsense, simple as that.

All just my humble opinion and informed $0.02 worth, mind you.

I agree with much of what you said. It is far better to take that step back and not commit to any of the viewpoints in eschatology.

Though it does appear that Partial Preterism is the stronger of the views.

 

[mkgal1]

Also, do tell how preterism is a denial of the faith. Last I checked, even preterists believed in God and the life & crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Good point. The way I see it, partial preterism only BUILDS our faith - because we know (and have evidence) that God fulfills His promises (and right on TIME - something deniers of preterism say God isn't interested in - that way they can get around all the time references).

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Jesus said "This generation". Not, the next generation or a future generation! How simple is that?

Some people take the bible literally when they see fit and dont when it goes against what they 'think' scripture is saying.

Revelation 1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

Not millenia away!

It has been a little bit over two days... I mean two millennia since Lord Jesus ascended to our Father.He promised to return. So when did He return?

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Good point. The way I see it, partial preterism only BUILDS our faith - because we know (and have evidence) that God fulfills His promises (and right on TIME - something deniers of preterism say God isn't interested in - that way they can get around all the time references).

Exactly. Besides, really...what would it matter in the long run, who's right and who's wrong? As long as it's not denying the existence of God or Jesus Christ, I'm pretty sure having different doctrines/interpretations was not on the list of 'sins that send you to hell'.

Otherwise, we have a lot more to worry about than preterism...

In other words, people need to let God do his job. Christians rag on atheists all the time for relying on 'man's wisdom' instead of God, yet here we all are a bunch of psuedo-theologian intellectuals pretending we know better than everyone and that we were somehow blessed enough to receive God's wisdom over the next guy lol. People didn't stop being stupid and distorting the gospel after Jesus wasn't around; in fact, I'd say we're probably living in the times of the modern-day pharisees. But nobody wants to talk about that, of course

 

[keras]

Jesus said "This generation". Not, the next generation or a future generation! How simple is that?

Some people take the bible literally when they see fit and dont when it goes against what they 'think' scripture is saying.

Revelation 1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

Not millenia away!

Jesus said: Truly I tell you, this generation will see it all. Matthew 24:34
This generation is defined by the preceding verse, where Jesus tells how the fig tree, that is: the Jewish people will again bud and blossom. They were conquered and dispersed in 70 AD, so verse 34 cannot apply to that time.
This generation started when the Jewish State of Israel was formed.
The nearly 2000 years since Jesus made this prophecy is a fact of history and a fulfillment of Hosea 6:2 & Luke 13:32.

 

[DavidPT]

Though it does appear that Partial Preterism is the stronger of the views.

If Partial Preterism, in regards to the Discourse, means events having to do with things post the ascension up until the 2nd advent, and what happens after the 2nd advent, then I agree with you. Which would mean it covers events in the first century as well as events in the end of this age. But if Partial Preterism, in regards to the Discourse, means events only having to do with things in the first century, I would then disagree with you.

 

[mkgal1]

It has been a little bit over two days... I mean two millennia since Lord Jesus ascended to our Father.He promised to return. So when did He return?

There's a difference between His "coming with the clouds - sitting at the right hand of the Father" (as in Mark 14:62; Matthew 26:64) and His return.

 

[AvisG]

Excuse me?? Are you saying that Lord Jesus did not say something that is written that He said? If so, how did you determine that? What is your plumb line (if you know what a plumb line is )?

OK, you're excused. I do not start with the axiomatic premise that the Bible is inerrant for the simple reason - a head-scratcher for you, no doubt - that it is pretty obviously not inerrant. The notion that Jesus did not utter everything attributed to him in the NT does not shake my faith in the slightest - another head-scratcher for you, no doubt. I have been a serious, in-depth Christian for five decades, and I guarantee you that my understanding of the Bible and the vast scholarship surrounding the Bible is on a par with anyone on these forums. You would be hard-pressed to find a serious Bible scholar this side of the fundamentalist fringe who thinks Jesus actually uttered everything attributed to him in the NT. If believing this is essential to your faith, be my guest. The historical context, both of Jesus' ministry and of the period in which the Gospels and Revelation were written, strongly supports the view I have expressed - UNLESS, OF COURSE, ONE STARTS WITH THE INALTERABLE AXIOMATIC PREMISE that Jesus uttered everything attributed to him in the NT, in which case one is driven to one of the 40 or 50 attempts at harmonization that have been offered up.

Umm. This describes imminence.

You're going to have a bleeding scalp pretty soon, eh? If you see some inconsistency between what I've expressed and the notion that (1) Jesus may well have spoken of a Second Coming (which he almost surely did, since it seems like rather a bizarre notion for his disciples to have invented), and (2) we should live as though it could occur at any time (i.e., might indeed be imminent), I'm unable to follow your thinking. Partial preterists accept a future Second Coming. I'm not even concerned with whether my position is classified as partial preterism. My view really has nothing to do with whether "prophecies" were fulfilled in NT times. I simply believe the end-times material was inserted to deal with the reality of what the first century Christians and Jews were experiencing.

Scratch on.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

There's a difference between His "coming with the clouds - sitting at the right hand of the Father" (as in Mark 14:62; Matthew 26:64) and His return.

Please explain.

 

[DavidPT]

There's a difference between His "coming with the clouds - sitting at the right hand of the Father" (as in Mark 14:62; Matthew 26:64) and His return.

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
'
This can't be referring to Daniel 7 though. In Daniel 7 the order of events were as follows---coming in the clouds of heaven---followed by then sitting on the right hand of power.

In the Mark 14:62 He is seen coming in the clouds of heaven after having already been sitting on the right hand of power.

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

The same with this one as well.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven---this is meaning because of the following---he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight(Acts 1:9).

and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him---this results in Him then sitting on the right hand of power.

Both Mark 14:62 and Matthew 26:64 have Jesus already sitting on the right hand of power, followed by Him coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

I would then think Matthew 24:30---and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory----explains both Mark 14:62 and Matthew 26:64---and coming in the clouds of heaven.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Jesus said "This generation". Not, the next generation or a future generation! How simple is that?

Some people take the bible literally when they see fit and dont when it goes against what they 'think' scripture is saying.

Revelation 1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

Not millenia away!

The word genea means:

1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2b) metaphorically a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) especially in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

Different translations and Bible scholars interpret it in different ways. Many good Bible students see it my way, many your way. I do not limit its meaning to a 40 year generation as Preterism must to sustain its school of thought. It can equally and fairly broadly describe a time-periods (a literal generation or age) or natural descendants (a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits or men of the same stock).

The root word for genea is genos (Strong’s 1085), which means race, kindred, offspring, family, stock, tribe, nation, i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people.

Acts 13:26 talks about “children of the stock [Gr. genos] of Abraham” and Philippians 3:5 those “of the stock [Gr. genos] of Israel.” The Bible is here speaking in a natural sense.

The root word of genos is ginomai (Strong’s 1096), which literally means to gen-erate.

Matthew 24:34 is telling us that the Jewish race would not pass away until all things are fulfilled. Israel is an everlasting generation.

 

[mkgal1]

Please explain.

Read those two verses. They don't imply a "return to earth" - that's an assumption that's imposed on to the text. Jesus spoke those words while standing - in human flesh - already on Earth.

Matthew 26:64 - You have said it yourself," Jesus answered. "But I say to all of you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."​

 

[Lost4words]

One thing we should all agree on, when Jesus spoke those words, He was predicting a time in the future. Whether that time in the future was meaning in their lifetimes or not, that is debatable, though it shouldn't be. When looking at that statement in the contexts surrounding it, and looking at it now in hindsight, the fact His 2nd advent never occurred in the 1st century, it should be plainly obvious He wasn't meaning in their lifetimes by that statement. Of course though when you have some who deny the 2nd advent can be found in the Discourse to begin with, what is plainly obvious to some of the rest of us is not going to be plainly obvious to them.

Totally wrong.

Watch to this video

This Generation by R.C. Sproul

 

[sovereigngrace]

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)

That is why I distinguished between Partial Preterism and Full Preterism.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Good point. The way I see it, partial preterism only BUILDS our faith - because we know (and have evidence) that God fulfills His promises (and right on TIME - something deniers of preterism say God isn't interested in - that way they can get around all the time references).

Every stream of orthodox end-time theology believes and knows (has evidence) that God fulfills His promises. It is wrong and bias to limit that to only partial preterism.

 

[mkgal1]

That is why I distinguished between Partial Preterism and Full Preterism.

The title of this thread and the OP refers to partial preterism - which, technically is ALL Christians, because we all believe some prophecies are already past. And it's "partial" you're warning about in the title and OP.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Totally wrong.

Watch to this video

This Generation by R.C. Sproul

This reinforces my initial claim: 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.

 

[mkgal1]

Every stream of orthodox end-time theology believes and knows (has evidence) that God fulfills His promises. It is wrong and bias to limit that to only partial preterism.

Likewise - it's wrong to suggest preterism is a denial of faith. There's no support for an accusation like that (that I can even think of).