Featured Would Full Preterism be seen as heresy?

OF COURSE it ended before the Parousia, as the Parousia hasn't happened yet !

 

Why don't you cite the references? Not everyone knows what they are! Maybe they should, but many do not.

 

Coming to a Perterist view point has Scriptual reasons.
They need to be made and discussed. And refuted if need be. By providing a corrected understanding of said Scriptures as the case might be.

 

Absolutely correct.

 

Good point.

 

Tom believes the parousia happened spiritually in AD 70. To believe that he has to hold to one unsustainable position and two linguistic errors:

1. He believes that Revelation was written before AD 70, an extreme minority position.
2. The term "spiritual" never means the coming of a spirit in the Bible, but "of and pertaining to the spirit."
3. He believes that parousia can refer to a non-corporeal coming of Christ, which he and others of his ilk call a "spiritual coming,"

Note that I have posted proving to the satisfaction of most people that parousia in the NT is always physical, but he does not answer that, though he has demanded Scriptural proof that he is wrong.

 

In Matthew, parousia appears in 24:3, 24:27, 24:37 & 39. and in all but V3, is Jesus' own word. I don't know what'll do Tom for evidence if that's not it !

 

In your second sentence here, what does "glorified" mean concerning those "who had ever lived up to that time"?

 

Still awaiting an answer from Tom or any other preterist, full or partial, for the **FACT** that reality and history do NOT match the SCRIPTURAL prophecies for the eschatological events. For instance, none of the Romans who entered the temple as they were destroying it was a prince or ruler, none set up a statue of himself, none were miracle-working false prophets, none issued any mark of the beast, etc. AND PLEASE, PRETERISTS, IF YOU DO ANSWER, SPARE US THE UTTERLY-FALSE JIVE THAT MANY OF THOSE PROPHECIES ARE METAPHORICAL/SYMBOLIC ! !

To fulfill a prophecy, an event must match the prophecy exactly, word-for-word. An example is Jesus saying that not one stone of the temple would be left on top of another. That came to pass EXACTLY, as the Romans burned it & pulled it apart, seeking gold rumored to be cached between the stones. There have been wars & rumors of war ever since then.There have been many false messiahs, avatars, & false prophets & little antichrists.

But obviously, Jesus has NOT yet physically & visibly returned to cast the antichrist & false prophet alive into the LOF, nor have these evil men been made manifest yet. And, if the great trib has already occurred, then Jesus is LONG-overdue!

Simplt TRUTH is, these events have NOT yet happened, & preterism, both full & partial is false. No one can even begin to prove otherwise.

 

Correct.

I was listening to a radio preacher this week insist that 2 Corinthians 5:9-10 (judgement seat of Christ) insist that there is only 1 judgement and the judgement seat of Christ here is the same one as the Great White Throne judgement of Rev 20:11-15. The crux of the argument was given that 2 Corinthians 10 states that "we must all appear...". The word "we" means every single person, saved and unsaved.

This is of course silly if one takes the time to see how the word "we" is used many times from verse 1-13, it cannot mean everyone. For example verse 8 "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." This "we" cannot include the unsaved but the preterist and others others with the mindset forge ahead anyway.

It all comes down to how seriously one takes the actual words of the Bible.

 

Full Preterism Refuted by Brian Schwertley

This work appears to be a lengthy (104 pages) and detailed refutation of full preterism. I just found it online. Obviously, I have not had time to do anything much with it other than to skim certain parts.

Schwertley believes that full preterism is a heresy:

"There are some very lenient partial preterists who argue that full preterists should be accepted into the church as genuine believers with some errors that are not fundamental because Paul considered the professing Christians at Corinth who denied the resurrection to be brethren. This argument suffers from a number of serious problems. First, church members are not excommunicated without being given an opportunity to repent. If those who denied the resurrection rejected Paul’s corrective teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 and were obstinate in their false doctrine, they would have been disciplined in due time. Second, such an argument would prove too much because Paul has a whole section in Chapter 6 where he deals with church members who were having sex with prostitutes. Does this reality mean that churches should tolerate habitual whoremongers as church members and serve them the Lord’s supper? Obviously, like those who denied the resurrection, they would have been disciplined if they refused to repent. Third, Paul’s first and foremost argument against those who deny the resurrection of the body is that it logically destroys a central feature of the gospel itself—the resurrection of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:13-19). Clearly, Paul himself regarded a denial of the literal resurrection of believers’ physical bodies from the dead as destructive of the Christian faith. Given the apostle’s argumentation in 1 Corinthians, the full preterist teaching that God is the direct cause of death, suffering and evil in this world and the full preterist’s explicit denial that Jesus saves both our bodies and this fallen world, they must be treated as damnable heretics. Such a view may be regarded as unloving, intolerant and even unchristian in our pluralistic culture where church discipline is almost non-existent, but we are thoroughly convinced it is the biblical position."​

--Footnote 150 at the end of the article

 

Actually, preterism is VERY-easy to refute. The fulfillment of the eschatological prophecies is simply not found in history, period. The reduction of those prophecies to "metaphorical/symbolic" status by preterists is nonsense. They do it because actual history destroys their doctrine.

 

I agree. I never had much trouble (in my mind) refuting it. What is hard is getting the full preterist to answer my arguments from the Greek--the meaning of parousia as having to be physical, etc.

 

The views of full preterism that Jesus today has a "spiritual, non-physical" body and that there is no future resurrection of the dead are heretical views that go against foundational truths of the Christian faith. How can it be that such views have not been sharply denounced by numerous people on this discussion board?

 

I believe I can be found in this particular thread denouncing these.

 

Yes, there have been a few of us who have done so, which I appreciate. In my opinion, there should have been a great outcry.

 

Full preterists who deny that Jesus has a physical body today need to explain from Scripture what happened to His resurrected body. I believe that they do not have any legitimate explanation for what they claim to be true.