The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

I want to learn more about preterism/partial preterism. Specifically how prophecy has already been fulfilled from the preterist/partial preterist viewpoint. Thanks.

There is a big difference between preterist and partial preterist views. A full preterist view is unbiblical. It says everything has been fulfilled. That Jesus already came back a second time and there really is nothing else left to happen from Revelation. The partial preterist view is the belief that some, usually most, of the things in Revelation took place. Things like the Antichrist and mark of the beast have taken place. Things like the persecution under Nero and other rulers around that time help fulfill much of the prophecy. They believe there is another coming though where everything will be made perfect. I'm sure others could do a much better job of explaining the views but I hope this post helps. A great book on the 4 major end times views is Revelation: Four Views : A Parallel Commentary by Steve Gregg.

I would agree with Matthew here...

Full Preterism (all the prophecies of the Bible including the return of Jesus have already been fulfilled) is in my view 'heretical'.

Partial Preterism (The prophecies of the 'Great Tribulation' were fulfilled during the time of the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD) to me is very compelling.

Kenneth Gentry is the Partial Preterist author that has been most informative to me personally. Some of what he associates with the sack of Jerusalem I still personally associate with Jesus future Second Coming. However I find myself in agreement with him on most of the points he makes.

Some of Gentry's books are:

The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?
The Beast of Revelation
Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation
He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology

In Christ

Note from Moderator: I shrunk your links D but they all still work ~ slj

NOTE: Full Preterism is heresy, for if you believe it all; then, God is dead!

In Ardmore Oklahoma, in November of 1992, two preachers had a public debate about the Pope's "3 = 2" teaching.

God had warned you that Papacy and Pope would do this:

1) "He (Little Horn = Papacy) thinks to change times and law" - Dan 7.25.

2) "He (Beast = Papacy) opened his mouth in blasphemy against God; to blaspheme His name (1), His tabernacle (2), and the Dwellers in Heaven (3)" - Rev 13.6.

These are "The Three Blasphemies of the Beast' -- and the churches are teaching them!

1) The Papacy named the "bishop of Rome" the "bishop of bishops." But then, that title belongs to Jesus. See: 1Pet 2.25.

2) The Papacy -- and the churches -- deny New Jerusalem; the tabernacle of God with men (Rev 21.1-3).

3) The Papacy denies, and the churches, the First Century Resurrection, and the First Resurrection (AD 1775).

A) Don Preston proved, indisputably, the First Century Resurrection. See: Mt 16.27-28; Mt 24.34; 1Thes 4.16-17; 1Cor 15.50.

B) Bill Lockwood proved the "resurrection at the end of the Christian dispensation." See; Rev 20.11-15 -- "the resurrection of the Dead-only" (although Lockwood did not mention this).

This is HE THINKS TO CHANGE TIMES.

C) From God we learn of the "Three General Resurrections.' These are:
(1) Anointed the firstfruits: (2) afterwards those who are Anointed's at His Coming (AD 77); and (3) then the End, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father ..." - 1Cor 15.23-24.

X) Preston says we chop off #3.
Y) LOckwood says we slip #2 out of the middle.
Z) The Pope teaches we slip #2 out of the middle.

But God also recorded "Six Particular Resurrections." These are: Enoch (Gen 5), Elijah (2Ki 2), The Lamb of God (Mt 28), The "Old Heavens" (2Pet 3.7-10), The "New Heavens" (2Pet 3.13), The First Resurrection (Rev 6.9-11; Rev 14.9-12; Rev 15.1-4; Rev 20.4-6); The Final Resurrection (Rev 20.11-15).

Preston and Lockwood, and I, all believed in Jesus' Resurrection.
Lockwood and I believed in the Pope's "3 = 2" teaching.

But since the debate, my wife and I believe in all Six Resurrections.

Life is never the same after you learn to count to three!

sid

_________________
The simple believes every word ... - Prov 14.15.

If you prefer the convenience of being able to listen instead of read, Dan Trotter has a pretty thorough breakdown of Orthodox (or partial) Preterism here.

Here's an outline of Dr. Trotter's work (in progress) if you'd like to follow along.

_________________
Defending Christ

Why do you say that? What part requires God to be dead?

Are you also saying that the leading scholars who accept preterism believe God is dead, or that they simply do not understand preterism?

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

Hello;

My comments were dogmatically addressed to "full preterism."

"Partial Preterism" is an admission of fault.

"Preterism' was easily disproved, and so, they began "rationalizaion"; rather than admit that they were wrong.

sid

_________________
The simple believes every word ... - Prov 14.15.

Hello:

I know not what you know, and what you do not know, about Preterism; but I have read a couple of books by the promoters of "Preterism."

Besides that, I have corresponded with the writers to obtain dogmatic statements about what they believe.

Added to these, I continue to receive sporadic papers from one supporter of "Preterism."

One writer was John L. Bray, "Matthew 24 Fulfilled"; 1996, Lakeland, Florida. In his book he said that God had "ended all his works in AD 70"; except for the "final resurrection" (Rev 20.11-15).

Mr. Bray sent news letters to the buyers of his books, telling of his success; and in one news letter he informed us that he had changed his mind about "the final resurrection."

"The fool has said in his heart, 'No Gods [Elohim]" - Ps 53.1.

Cobra had inquired, "Why do you say they believe that God is dead?"

THE ANSWER: "They told me so" in the words quoted above.

Premillennialism also teaches that "God is missing."

Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, Mal Couch, when remarking on a historical-premillennialist (Andrew Fausset was one); he said:
"He was not really a Premillennialist."

So then, "God is only in the future"; if Premillennialism is correct.

The Protestants taught; "Jesus lives! -- today! -- on earth!"

sid

_________________
The simple believes every word ... - Prov 14.15.

Preterism is inherently anti-semetic. It is the belief that all Bible prophecy has been fulfilled, and implies that the Church has replaced Israel (Replacement theology). It also lets the world "off the hook" as far the coming judgement of God against all the nations.

It is humanism deguised as theology.

Rarely do I read a post that acutally makes me chuckle...but come on, anti-semitic? Doesn't anti-semitism imply some aversion to or hatred of Jews? Do you really think that just because someone believes that there's not two lines of prophecy running (one for the church and a separate one for Israel), that makes them anti-semitic by default? Seems a little sensationalistic to me.

Here's a thought for you to chew on. There are some programs in place right now that encourage people to give money so that Jews from around the world can be financed for a move back to the original homeland of Israel. Now, if you believe that the world is going to come crashing down on Israel in the form of future judgments, why would anyone want Jews to return there? Gosh...I think I'd be warning them to get the heck outta Dodge, but that's just me. So maybe it's the people that support these programs, which I bet are mostly futurists, that are really the anti-semites.

On a serious note, it just seems ridiculous to imply that someone is a racists solely due to their eschatological beliefs.

_________________
Defending Christ

Of course, it's anti-semetic. It basically says the Jews got 'what was coming to them' and now us Gentile believers have all the promises God gave to them, and now God has abandoned the Jews.

Ed Hinson wrote an article on it that says just that. Try googling it...


And it's certainly more anti-semitic than saying "Legalism is a sin. It is what crucified Jesus". Something I was once accused of being anti-semtic for writting.

I see. Instead of "Because the Bible tells me so," it's "Because Dr. Hinson tells me so."

LoL, look Kris. If you want to go on believeing this because someone gave you their slanted opinion on it and it fits what you think, then fine. But it also makes me think you've never actually talked to people that differed from you in their view of eschatology. If you're just going for dramatic effect, then you've made your point. But from where I sit, the people that I have talked to believe that instead of replacing Israel, God is more or less including Gentiles in the blessings. And you know what? They might be wrong on that account. Maybe there is a separate plan for each group. But they might also be right. There is support for both claims. In any case though, I've never heard someone say "they got what was coming to them."

Then again, I'm sure you can log on to Pal talk or somewhere and find somebody that gets their drawers up in a bunch about all this and prove yourself and Mr. Hinson right, so whatever makes you feel better at night...

_________________
Defending Christ

Yup!

And Paul describes that 'inclusion of the Gentiles' in Romans 11 as being 'grafted in'...

In Christ

Now why on earth would you want them to build a third temple? First problem is the current occupancy, and secondly why would we need to finance (Christians) this temple in order to re-establish the sacrifices?

If God wanted a third temple built, do you think it would be built anytime soon? If so why?

Didn't we already establish the end of the Jewish age?

I suspect there is a great deal of pent-up demand for a third temple in the community of Orthodox Jews.

And I expect that temple to be built sometime in the future.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted