Full Preterism: True or False

[OldRegular]

In his book, The Last Days According to Jesus, R. C. Sproul summarizes the doctrine of Full Preterism using four criteria or events, contrasting Full Preterism with Partial Preterism [page157].

The four criteria or Events are:

1. The Coming [parousia or presence] of Jesus Christ.

2. Resurrection and Rapture.

3. Day of the Lord.

4. Judgment.

The Full Preterist believe that all of these Events occurred in 70 AD and that none will ever occur again. The Partial Preterist believes that Events 1, 3, and 4 occurred in some sense in 70 AD but that all will occur sometime in the Future. My own personal opinion, and I believe the teaching of Scripture, is that the only Event that occurred in 70AD was God's judgment of the Jews and the destruction of the Temple decisively demonstrating that the Old Covenant was no more. I believe that part of the Olivet Discourse of Jesus Christ is a prophecy of the events of 70 AD and part is a prophecy of the Visible Return of Jesus Christ at the end of time.

If the Partial Preterists want to believe that the events of 70 AD can be characterized as a parousia and a Day of the Lord, as well as a judgment, then I see no over riding error with that belief though I personally do not see that in Scripture. However, the idea of the parousia [or presence of Jesus Christ] in 70 AD is troubling.

I totally disagree with the Full Preterist view and believe there is absolutely no Biblical support for denying the occurrence of the four events at the end of time. It seems to me that there is one passage of Scripture that destroys the Full Preterist doctrine, the prophecy of Jesus Christ concerning the Resurrection of the body:

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Now I understand that those of premillennial persuasion will insist that the above Scripture pictures a resurrection at two different periods. I do not want this thread to deteriorate into a debate over that issue.

I want the Full Preterists on this Board to demonstrate through Scripture and the history of the 70 AD events that the resurrections of the above Scripture occurred at that time!

 

[Grasshopper]

Good summary, however RC Sproul teaches a spiritual Ressurrection has occured but a physical Ressurrection is still future. A problem for me became a redefining of what Ressurrection is. Full preterist redefine that term.

If you do hold to a partial preterist view, then it is almost impossible to deny AD 70 was a parousia event based on a comparison of Luke and Matthew as shown:

http://www.google.com/search?q=matt...oAQ&biw=768&bih=928#biv=i|2;d|PfgVMYioNBmVeM:

 

[OldRegular]

Good summary, however RC Sproul teaches a spiritual Ressurrection has occured but a physical Ressurrection is still future. A problem for me became a redefining of what Ressurrection is. Full preterist redefine that term.

If you do hold to a partial preterist view, then it is almost impossible to deny AD 70 was a parousia event based on a comparison of Luke and Matthew as shown:

http://www.google.com/search?q=matt...oAQ&biw=768&bih=928#biv=i|2;d|PfgVMYioNBmVeM:

i believe in a spiritual resurrection but I would call it the "new birth". I believe Jesus Christ is talking about a spiritual resurrection in john 5:25!

 

[Grasshopper]

i believe in a spiritual resurrection but I would call it the "new birth". I believe Jesus Christ is talking about a spiritual resurrection in john 5:25!

Yes, the full preterist would say this is the only Ressurrection the Bible speaks of. Jesus said "I am the Ressurrection". Ressurrected from death (Adam) unto life (Jesus). No need for a "physical" Ressurrection. This is the biggest hurdle for most when trying to go from partial to full. It was a hurdle Sproul would not cross.

 

[OldRegular]

Yes, the full preterist would say this is the only Ressurrection the Bible speaks of. Jesus said "I am the Ressurrection". Ressurrected from death (Adam) unto life (Jesus). No need for a "physical" Ressurrection. This is the biggest hurdle for most when trying to go from partial to full. It was a hurdle Sproul would not cross.

I would be interested to see how they get around the verses in the OP!

 

[OldRegular]

Some of you folks may avoid the thread: "Tracing the Origins of Coming on the Clouds". Therefore, I am taking the liberty of repeating a post I rebutting the false doctrine of Full Preterism championed by "word-1" on that thread.

Full preterism makes a liar out of the Author of the Bible; therefore, full preterism is a false doctrine at best and has even been labeled a heretical doctrine by many.

Full preterism denies the resurrection of the body. Scripture teaches the resurrection of the body. God through the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Church at Corinth tells us why the resurrection of the body is necessary:

1 Corinthians 15:1-6
1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

The Apostle here is simply reviewing for these folks the truth of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, a body that was seen by all the Apostles, except Judas, and then by 500 believers at the same time. The Gospels make clear that this body was not a spirit or an apparition, though Paul will tell us later in the chapter that the resurrection body is a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
12. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13. But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

There you have it folks, in good old King James English; the resurrection of all the dead. But the story is the same in whatever language it is written. {Not that I have read all but the Bible is the Word of God!}

The above Scripture is crucial to the validity of our salvation. If there is no resurrection of the dead then Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ was not raised. If there was no resurrection of Jesus Christ then our faith is in vain and we are still in our sins. The Apostle Paul tells us in his letter to the Church at Rome that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ established the validity of the incarnation and the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Edited for clarity:
So you see folks the semantic meanderings of "word-1" in his thread "Tracing the Origins of Coming on the Clouds" are not insignificant, they strike at the very heart of the Gospel.

Without the resurrection the cross is just another tragedy in a world full of tragedies and we are still in our sins and are of all people most miserable and deluded. But the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a fact and one great and glorious day:

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, KJV
16. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

 

[OldRegular]

I noted in the OP that R. C. Sproul in his book The Last Days According to Jesus summarizes the doctrine of Full Preterism using four criteria or events and contrasted Partial Preterism with Fulll Preterism.

Folks there is a vast difference between Partial Preterism and Full Preterism, the difference between daylight and dark. It is very possible for a "futurist" to be a Partial Preterist depending on how they view the events of 70 AD. I am not a futurist in the dispensational sense of the word but for me the Return of Jesus Christ, the Resurrection of all the dead, the White Throne Judgment with Satan cast into the Lake of Fire, and the New Heavens and New Earth are Biblical facts. I also believe that the judgment of God was poured out on Jerusalem and the Jews in 70 AD bringing a definitive end to the Old Covenant, consistent with the prophecy of Jesus Christ in the Olivet Discourse.

 

[convicted1]

False.........

 

[convicted1]

i believe in a spiritual resurrection but I would call it the "new birth". I believe Jesus Christ is talking about a spiritual resurrection in john 5:25!

I agree with this.

A question for you: when we come forth from the graves with a new body likened unto Jesus' most glorious body, do you believe it to be phyiscal or spritual in its form? Personally, I believe it to be spiritual.

 

[OldRegular]

False.........

What is false?

 

[OldRegular]

I agree with this.

A question for you: when we come forth from the graves with a new body likened unto Jesus' most glorious body, do you believe it to be phyiscal or spritual in its form? Personally, I believe it to be spiritual.

It is obviously visible since 500 plus people saw Jesus Christ after the resurrection. Paul calls the resurrection body a "spiritual body".

1 Corinthians 15:42-44
42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43. It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

I can't say any more than that because I don't know any more than that!

 

[convicted1]

What is false?

The full-preterists have the resurrection and Jesus Christ's return at AD 70. Our hope IS IN the resurrection, which IS Jesus Christ. If these things occurred in AD 70, we have no hope.....but He will come when God the Father tells Him to come in the Cloud, and we will be resurrected that morning.

 

[convicted1]

It is obviously visible since 500 plus people saw Jesus Christ after the resurrection. Paul calls the resurrection body a "spiritual body".

1 Corinthians 15:42-44
42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43. It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

I can't say any more than that because I don't know any more than that!

And I concur with this, as well....

 

[OldRegular]

The full-preterists have the resurrection and Jesus Christ's return at AD 70. Our hope IS IN the resurrection, which IS Jesus Christ. If these things occurred in AD 70, we have no hope.....but He will come when God the Father tells Him to come in the Cloud, and we will be resurrected that morning.

Show me where I said Jesus Christ returned in 70 AD or where He is not going to return again. I am attempting to refute Full preterism, not defend it!

I will remind you what I said:

I noted in the OP that R. C. Sproul in his book The Last Days According to Jesus summarizes the doctrine of Full Preterism using four criteria or events and contrasted Partial Preterism with Fulll Preterism.

Folks there is a vast difference between Partial Preterism and Full Preterism, the difference between daylight and dark. It is very possible for a "futurist" to be a Partial Preterist depending on how they view the events of 70 AD. I am not a futurist in the dispensational sense of the word but for me the Return of Jesus Christ, the Resurrection of all the dead, the White Throne Judgment with Satan cast into the Lake of Fire, and the New Heavens and New Earth are Biblical facts. I also believe that the judgment of God was poured out on Jerusalem and the Jews in 70 AD bringing a definitive end to the Old Covenant, consistent with the prophecy of Jesus Christ in the Olivet Discourse.

 

[convicted1]

Show me where I said Jesus Christ returned in 70 AD or where He is not going to return again. I am attempting to refute Full preterism, not defend it!

I will remind you what I said:

Chill.......Brother....chill....Brother Baker. I wasn't saying you were in their camp....go back and read what I posted. The OP asked a "true or false" and I stated "false". You, then in turn, asked me why it was "false", and when I stated why, you blasted me and accused me of something I never said about you. Go back and reread before you "put someone on blast", please.

 

[convicted1]

I know you're not a full-preterist Brother Baker....and would never make such a claim to falsely accuse you as such......we're both in the partial camp......:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

Chill.......Brother....chill....Brother Baker. I wasn't saying you were in their camp....go back and read what I posted. The OP asked a "true or false" and I stated "false". You, then in turn, asked me why it was "false", and when I stated why, you blasted me and accused me of something I never said about you. Go back and reread before you "put someone on blast", please.

You need to go back and read the OP. There was no true or false question there.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You need to go back and read the OP. There was no true or false question there.

I cant just wait to see what happens, trust in God & be at peace? I have to take sides on something my lord says I dont have control over?

 

[convicted1]

You need to go back and read the OP. There was no true or false question there.

Well, Brother Baker, here's the title to the OP:

Full Preterism: True or False

I stated "false", you then asked why, I stated such, and then the downward spiral......

 

[Luke2427]

Good summary, however RC Sproul teaches a spiritual Ressurrection has occured but a physical Ressurrection is still future. A problem for me became a redefining of what Ressurrection is. Full preterist redefine that term.

If you do hold to a partial preterist view, then it is almost impossible to deny AD 70 was a parousia event based on a comparison of Luke and Matthew as shown:

http://www.google.com/search?q=matt...oAQ&biw=768&bih=928#biv=i|2;d|PfgVMYioNBmVeM:

I agree.

I think the AD 70 event was a coming of Christ in judgment just as he said he would in Matthew 24.

I think it could not be more clear that Matthew 24 is referring to AD 70.

And I think that the future physical resurrection of the dead is supported elsewhere in Scripture.

I don't believe that there is a doctrine anywhere within orthodox Christianity that has as little scriptural support as the rapture doctrine of the dispnesationalists.

I am a partial preterist.