Partial Preterist Viewpoint on Revelation

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by dragonfly, May 10, 2008.

  1. dragonfly

    dragonfly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anyone know much about this viewpoint? Also, are there any good books covering this idea? Lastly, does anyone here hold to this belief?
     
  2. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Lots of books on the subject.

    Chilton: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1987_chilton_days-of-vengeance.pdf

    Kenneth Gentry with "The Beast of Revelation" and "Before jerusalem Fell". Those these aren't really commentaries on Revelation they deal with the suject matter.

    William Hendrickson's, "More than Conquerors" though it is Amill. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0801057922/?tag=baptis04-20

    "Who is this Babylon" by Don Preston comes from a full-preterist view: http://www.eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=188&Itemid=1

    I hold to a view somewhere in there, I just don't know where.
     
  3. JDale

    JDale
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    From Wikipedia -- which in this case is a fairly decent summary of Preterism:
    Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days or End Times refer to events which actually happened in the first century after Christ's birth. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning "past". Adherents of Preterism are known as Preterists. The two principal schools of Preterist thought are commonly called Partial Preterism and Full Preterism.

    There is substantial disagreement over the terms used to denote these divisions of Preterist thought. Some Partial Preterists prefer to call their position Orthodox Preterism, thus contrasting their agreement with the creeds of the Ecumenical Councils with what they perceive to be the Full Preterists' rejection for the same. This, in effect, makes Full Preterism unorthodox in the eyes of Partial Preterists and gives rise to the claim by some that Full Preterism is heretical. (Partial Preterism is also sometimes called Classical Preterism or Moderate Preterism.) Some Full Preterists prefer to call their position Consistent Preterism, reflecting their extension of Preterism to all biblical prophecy and thus claiming an inconsistency in the Partial Preterist hermeneutic. The correct labeling of the positions in relation to each other is a matter of heated dispute amongst some Partial Preterists and Full Preterists who would reject those labels and argue for others, most notably, which view may simply be called "preterism."

    Sub-variants of Preterism include one form of Partial Preterism which places fulfillment of some eschatological passages in the first three centuries of the current era, culminating in the fall of Rome. In addition, certain statements from classical theological liberalism are easily mistaken for Preterism, as they hold that the biblical record accurately reflects Jesus' and the Apostles' belief that all prophecy was to be fulfilled within their generation. Theological liberalism generally regards these apocalyptic expectations as being errant or mistaken, though, so it is not accurate to class this view as a form of Preterism.

    I am not Preterist, though I know some who are -- or are "partial Preterists." I personally don't believe one can be a "full Preterist" and be an orthodox Christian. Hope this provides a good starting point.
     
  4. dragonfly

    dragonfly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that being a full preterist is inconsistent with the Bible. I should have made it clear that I was talking about being a partial preterist.

    BTW, thank you and others for the information. God bless!
     
  5. Outsider

    Outsider
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    dragonfly,

    I am unfamiliar with many labels and terms. After researching it out (some), I would have to say that I am a partial preterist. I also found out that I am an Amillennialist (I think).
    I have not studied these out to their extent, but from the surface I would agree with them.
    I hold to the belief that Christ can return at any time. In order for Him to return, the scriptures must be fulfilled.
     
  6. dan e.

    dan e.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Hank Hanegraaf has a good one, "The Apocolypse Code". Although, I'm not very well read on the issue, but I thought it was an interesting book.

    I may need to check out some of the others mentioned. I also lean towards that view, away from the typical LaHaye-type interpretations.
     
  7. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Just last night I was watching an RC Sproul video where he seems to be making the case for some form of preterism. He supports the earlier dating of the Revelation anyway. I can't find the video on the Ligonier web site now or else I would post the link.

    I consider myself partial preterist based not so much on my view of revelation but my view of Mat 24 and other passages which point to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. If you try to put all prophecies in the future it doesn't work. Whether Revelation speaks to the fall of the Roman impire or not is something I'm still studying.
     
  8. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have than one by Mr. Hanegraaf but haven't gotten round to reading it.
     
  9. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well...

    The reason no Christian can be a preterist is because there has been no rapture yet. Those in Mt 27:52-53 didn't DISAPPEAR --- they APPEARED! Then in in his pastoral epistles in 63 & 66 AD, 1Tim 1:20 and 2Tim 2:17-18, Paul turns Hymenaeus over to Satan for teaching that the resurrection has already come "overthrowing the faith of many" (Doubtless one of them deceived the church at Thessalonica as early as 51 AD, 2Thes 2:2!)


    Mild preterists believe that the all events of Revelation occurred in the first 300 years of the church -- moderate preterists believe that all the events were fulfilled by 70 AD thought there is a second coming and resurrection of believers yet future -- extreme preterists believe all the events were fulfilled in 70 AD. They also teach the heretical notion that there is no return of Christ nor bodily resurrection of the dead. So, "name your poison" when you decide to accept preterism.

    Another issue arises in that NONE of the events they see as preterists was seen in any timeframe like even half much less all of the tribulation period given in The Revelation --- 3 1/2 and 7 years respectively! The temple was destroyed 40 years AFTER Messiah was "cut off" (Dan 9:26), NOT 3 1/2 years, folks! and that destruction was 43 years after Christ was supposedly "annointed" by John the Baptist!

    But mainly, preterists believe ALL the prophecies LITERALLY concerning the first coming of Christ but FEW if any of the prophecies LITERALLY that concern His 2nd coming and kingdom (Isa 49:17-26, 60-66, Ezek 40-48, Zech 14, Micah 4:1-7, and many others). What is wrong with that picture? It screams of being false teaching!! And it "catches" as in a "net" the "birds" (Prov 2:17-18) who don't know any better than to notice how the "net" was laid WITH ALLEGORY AND NOT WITH HISTORICAL, GRAMMATICAL, LITERAL HERMENEUTICS.

    skypair
     
    #9 skypair, May 14, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 14, 2008
  10. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skypair do you believe that any of the events of AD 70 were the fulfillment of any Biblical Prophecies? If so which ones?

    For those of you like me who don't have all the answers I found the following web site helpful as far as resources are concerned.

    http://www.preteristsite.com/praeteristresources.html
     
  11. Outsider

    Outsider
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, this is in itself a false teaching. It is those that hold to a futurist teaching that is repeating the same mistake that Israel made.
    We do believe that every prophesy was fulfilled literally as they happened and as the prophets foretold but certainly not in a literal or natural way. Israel was foretold of a king who would come and reign and they would not accept Christ because they were literally looking for a natural king to establish his natural kingdom.
    Christ said that His kingdom was not of this world. When He was on the earth, He was the King of kings and He did in fact set up His kingdom here on earth. He is still ruling His kingdom today.

    It is those that are looking for Christ to come and set up a literal kingdom on earth and literally reign at that time who is repeating the same mistake that Israel made 2000 years ago.

    They were looking for a natural king and a natural kingdom. Partial peterists accept that all prophecies were literally fulfilled. Christ was a Spiritual King and His Kingdom was Spiritually set up in God's children.
    Being consistent, we look at His second coming the same way. It will literally happen, but not to set up a natural kingdom. His kingdom is already established. He is coming to gather His children and take us all home.
     
  12. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hs --- I have read regarding Luke that the Olivet Discourse was, as you probably know, split between Luke 17 and Luke 21. One of the other of those accounts was read by the church to be a warning about Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD and that is why the church left days before it was surrounded by the Romans. Had they not been thus warned, we know from Peter and from Paul that they were under just as much persecution and would have suffered the same fate.

    Then there is Jesus prophecy in the parable of the wedding dinner, Mt 22:3. Instead of a wedding, the king 1) destroyed their city (22:7) and 2) sent out more servants to bid more guests (22:8-9).

    The "marriage supper," BTW, will be held postrib on the earth, Rev 19:7-9. The "guests" will be Israel and the "wife" - the church -- will be introduced to His relatives as is the Jewish custom (that the supper follows the wedding and consummation of 7 days).

    The "guests" have ALWAYS been ISRAEL in this parable and they obviously are not being "bidden" to be "guests" right now, are they? The servants will go out again in the tribulation and "bid" them come to the wedding supper they will by then know is coming soon.

    skypair
     
  13. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    :laugh: That's double-speak for an admission of guilt. Was Jesus born in Bethlehem literally or spiritually? Did they break any bones in His body literally or were they broken literally but not spiritually? Was a "child" born unto Israel? There's 39 or more of these LITERAL prophecies with LITERAL fulfillments. If the one that have not been fulfilled literally haven't been fulfilled literally, then it is because they are yet to be fulfilled.

    So you say that God had to "back off" and only establish a spiritual kingdom, right? Or that God lied about the literal kingdom that He promised them and which they were looking for on account of His promises to David, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc. Which is it?

    Well, it certainly wasn't after Israel rejected Him. It certainly wasn't at the moment that He said those words "IS not of this world!" Do you have so little discernment that you can't tell that He was not precluding a future kingdom? He did NOT say "My kingdom WILL NOT BE of this world," did He?

    Tell that to King Herod by whose authority Jesus was crucified. He set up a SPIRITUAL kingdom of spiritual kings or kings to be -- the church! There are no "kings" of leaders that are following His orders right now -- not even the one we would expect to not try to divide Israel's land, George Bush.

    Whoa! Where does scripture say that the prophecies were literally fulfilled??

    It DOESN'T. What you have accepted is some man's word that a spiritual kingdom constitutes the literal fulfillment of literally intended prophecies. You know, the Jews expected a literal earthly kingdom for a reason --- God had promised it to the believing saints (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), believing kings (David, Hezekiah, etc.) and prophets (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, etc.).

    Now here you come along ostensibly speaking for God and nullifying His promises to His OT saints? I don't think so. I think you are getting involved in a massive coverup -- a deceptive church conspiracy that looks to their own plans and not God's plan for its agenda.

    Literal prophecies will be literally fulfilled. Ezek 47 was NOT a spiritual vision. That temple and that river will flow from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and give life to everything there. You dare not see this as already fulfilled nor spiritually fulfilled in any literal sense.

    Yes, Jesus set up the spiritual aspects of His kingdom. The MK will be just like this one on a personal, spiritual level. But on the physical level, it will be ruled by Christ and through Israel.

    You are misinformed on this. Christ has a "heavenly" people and an "earthly" people --- 2 "folds" (John 10:16). That is, Christ's "heavenly" people -- His SPIRITUAL KINGDOM -- is the church. But His "earthly" people -- His PHYSICAL KINGDOM, ISRAEL --- is yet to come in!

    You are playing "fast and loose" with scripture, my friend, and God is not going to be too pleased with your failure to "keep the word of His patience," Rev 3:10. Do you think this might be a sign of the Laodicean origins of your eschatology?

    skypair
     
  14. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pretty good 'nutshell' analysis.

    Ed
     
  15. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Ed. I've found that preterists are either

    1) "Inclusive" theologically (like BBob) wherein a remnant of Israel received Christ and the church age is His promised kingdom to them OR

    2) replacement" theologically (the historic Catholic and Reform models) wherein the church replaced Israel -- the "other fold" -- and the literal promises to Israel -- like the earthly kingdom -- are ours to claim now.

    skypair
     
  16. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is partial preterist my friend.

    Does OT actually ever say, that the "kingdom" is natural???

    BBob,
     
  17. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14

    The “poison” of CH Spurgeon:

    Commenting on Matthew 24:15-21

    "This portion of our Saviour's words appears to relate solely to the destruction of Jerusalem. As soon as Christ's disciples saw "the abomination of desolation," that is, the Roman ensigns, with their idolatries, "stand in the holy place," they knew that the time for their escape had arrived; and they did flee to the mountains."

    The “poison’ of John Gill:

    Mat 24:29 - Immediately after the tribulation of those days,.... That is, immediately after the distress the Jews would be in through the siege of Jerusalem, and the calamities attending it; just upon the destruction of that city, and the temple in it, with the whole nation of the Jews, shall the following things come to pass; and therefore cannot be referred to the last judgment, or what should befall the church, or world, a little before that time, or should be accomplished in the whole intermediate time, between the destruction of Jerusalem, and the last judgment:

    Perhaps the “poison” of FF Bruce is to your liking:

    "When the temple area was taken by the Romans, and the sanctuary itself was still burning, the soldiers brought their legionary standards into the sacred precincts, set them up opposite the eastern gate, and offered sacrifice to them there, acclaiming Titus as imperator (victorious commander) as they did so. The Roman custom of offering sacrifice to their standards had already been commented on by a Jewish writer as a symptom of their pagan arrogance, but the offering of such sacrifice in the temple court was the supreme insult to the God of Israel. This action, following as it did the cessation of the daily sacrifice three weeks earlier, must have sensed to many Jews, as it evidently did to Josephus, a new and final fulfillment of Daniel's vision of a time when the continual burnt offering would be taken away and the abomination of desolation set up" (Israel and the Nations, p. 226)


    Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

    The text doesn’t say the destruction would occur within the 70th week.


    Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
    Isa 40:4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:

    So please explain using your “literal” hermeneutic how a “highway was made straight in the desert” and how “every valley” was exalted and “every mountain and hill” was made low when John the Baptist arrived on the scene.

    In fact since you have trouble comprehending how the Bible uses language we should re-read the entire Bible using your literal hermeneutic. Let’s start here:

    Exo 3:8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

    Have you ever read the Old Testament and the way the Prophets used metaphors and figurative language to express literal events? Seems you take everything literal EXCEPT the simple concepts as “soon”, “near” and “at hand”. Why is that?
     
  18. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
    Luk 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

    So please explain how verses 21-22 are to be separated from the following verses and how they don’t speak of the same events of Matthew 24.

    The “God backing off” view is held by dispies. It’s called the Church Age or “parenthesis.” Preterism teaches God actually kept His promises.

    Mar 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
    Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

    I guess Jesus got it wrong in your view. God had to "back off" because of Jewish rejection.

    I think God said He laughs at such thoughts:

    Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
    Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
    Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
    Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

    No, I think Jesus came right on time and established the Kingdom just when Daniel had predicted:

    Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.



    Too much John Hagee in your diet.


    Yea, I’m sure God is looking forward to going back to blood sacrifices for the atonement of sin. Just what is it about Christ’s atonement that dispies find lacking?

    Eze 40:39 And in the porch of the gate were two tables on this side, and two tables on that side, to slay thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering.

    Eze 42:13 Then said he unto me, ...there shall they lay the most holy things, and the meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering; for the place is holy.


    Eze 45:17 And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and.... for the house of Israel.
    Eze 45:19 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering, and put it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court.

    Eze 46:20 Then said he unto me, This is the place where the priests shall boil the trespass offering and the sin offering, where they shall bake the meat offering; that they bear them not out into the utter court, to sanctify the people.


    So tell us, just where is the blood of Christ during this wonderful time you speak of?


    Good thing you weren’t a Torah teacher 3000 years ago. I can imagine how disappointed your followers would be:

    Exo 3:8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

    Is the water/river of life that you refer to different than these that Jesus spoke of?

    Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

    Please filter that through your HISTORICAL, GRAMMATICAL, LITERAL HERMENEUTICS.

    Isa 12:3 Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.

    Isa 58:11 And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.

    Isa 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:



    Way too much “left behind” for my liking. Let me guess, the Tim LaHaye Prophecy Bible is sitting right next to you. Correct?
     
    #18 Grasshopper, May 15, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2008
  19. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    How else do you interpret Ezek 47:1-10 (Well, actually, Ezek 40-48)??? Micah 4:1-5???? Zech 14:8-11, 16-21??? Isa 60-66??? These are all literal people, places, and things. How is it that you can make "Engedi" in Ezek 47:10 symbolic/allegorical of anything, for instance?? How do you claim that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob don't receive the "land" as an eternal inheritance??

    skypair
     
  20. Outsider

    Outsider
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ literaly established His kingdom.
    John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
    John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

    Nic-o-de-mus was baffled by this. He was asking how a man could be born naturally a second time. I fear many are baffled by the kingdom as well.
    He certainly did not say that "His kingdom will not be of this world".
    He certainly did not say that "His kingdom will be of this world" either.
    He certainly did say that "His kingdom is not of this world"
    John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

    If I understand what you are saying, then that would mean that Christ's "Heavenly people" are the fold He already has and the other fold is the "Earthly people" He will bring in.
    If that is true, then that would mean that Israel is (According to you) the "Earthly people", then Christ came first to the gentiles and will later come to Israel.... I don't think scripture supports that.
    He came to the Jew first, then the gentiles. Two folds are now one fold (The Church), with one Shepherd. One kingdom with one king.
     

Share This Page

Loading...