Full Preterism

I decided to do my own study on eschatology about 12 years ago. Growing up in your typical SBC church all I knew of was the standard Dispie view. I had no reason to look elsewhere since I was sure all biblically sound Christians held to this view, after all it was unanimously held by every pastor, evangelist and teacher I was ever exposed to ( in person or on tv).
That all changed when I heard a series by the pastor at my parents SBC church. It was based on Gary DeMar's book "Last Days Madness". I didn't believe it at first but the more I thought about it the more it began to make sense. So I got his book and read it, immediately I knew the view I grew up with had major problems so I decided to dig in and start studying.

To make a long story short I began flirting with the full preterist position and held to it at differing times on and off for a number of years. I finally came to the conclusion that I just don't know so I consider myself a preterist but that is as specific as I'm comfortable with at this point. Basically I straddle the fence. I will say though I find the FP position to be the most consistent. On a side note, all the FP I am aware of began as partial preterist but then began to see the problems of consistency in that model.

This makes no sense, why would FP prevent salvation? FP does not teach this.

Again, the author hasn't read much on the subject.

These are a very few of the verses, but partial prets would agree with FP on the interpretation of thee verses. BTW, those verses are quite self explanatory.

Another piece of bad info. In fact, go read Spurgeon, Gill, Lightfoot, and many throughout Church History who see the Olivet Discourse as being fulfilled in the events of AD 70. FP constantly quote the works of others to make their case. They would then point out the inconsistencies in their systems.

True, but it seems to be a newer and small movement. *But their are commentaries out there on Revelation, 2 Peter and assorted passages.

 

Thanks for commenting here, Grasshopper. I was going to say many of the same things you did, but currently I am far from my laptop, typing clumsily on my nook.

It irritates me when people quote "authorities" on Preterism who clearly are ill-equipped to assess the subject. This author (Philip Brown) and I have had a long history of give and take on several subjects back in my old group of abcprophecy. He was usually cordial enough, but I am sad that he has serious misunderstanding about the nature of grace and the Gospel, believing that it is both both possible and necessary to "quit sinning".

Out of his imperfect grasp of grace comes other faulty teaching, not the least of which is this misguided piece on Preterism.

 

I know nothing about it....so what are the complaints about it?

 

Church always saw full pretiersm as heresy, as those holding to that view say second coming already happened, and deny the physical bodily resurrection of the saints with Christ!

 

Full preteriam is phony as a Ford Corvette!

The preterist CANNOT explain how history missed the physical, visible return of JESUS, an event He Himself said would be SEEN BY ALL.

The preterist CANNOT explain why the Mount of Olives is intact today, not split in two with a great rift between the two halves, an Zech. 14:4 sez will happen when Jesus returns and alights on that mountain.

The preterist CANNOT exolain how history missed such events as the world ruler, the mark of the beast, and the events of Revelation 8 & 9.

The preterist CANNOT explain why the Revelator told John to measure the temple in the vision when the Revelation was given AFTER the temple in jerusalem had been destroyed.

The preterist CANNOT explain why prophecy is being fulfilled right under his nose...such as the Jews' having their own sovereign nation again, with Jerusalem as its capital, or Egypt's being terrified of the land of Judah(Isaiah 19).

Their denial of the physical, visible return of Christ is a great BLASPHEMY! Let us reject all parts of the evil preterist doctrine!

 

Whatever eschatological position you take, it ultimately must result in Jesus Christ returning to (however you get there) establish the New Jerusalem.

Not that Jesus has returned spiritually, but he is going do return at some point.

 

Actually they can and have answered all of those questions. Perhaps you might want to study the subject before making such uninformed statements. Not liking an answer is not the same has not having an answer.