Response to [member's names not allowed in thread title] on Partial Preterism

Hank,

I was unable to respond to your response to my comments in time before the thread was closed.

The reason I said that you misunderstand Partial Preterism ("PP" from here on out), is because the view is not necessarily monolithic. I will explain later.

First, let us get the obvious out of the way. PP rejects the mid-19th-century invention of Dispensationalism. I came out of Dispensationalism, so I understand the vitriolic response from the dispensational side towards any view that does not agree with a pre-wrath rapture, a literal seven-year tribulation, and a thousand year millennium. I used to watch with amusement when dispensationalists attacked each other over pre, mid, and post trib rapture theories. It was only then that I concluded that certainty in the micro areas of eschatology is a difficult thing to claim. To let you know where I am coming from, I hold to Amillennialism and PP with a loose grip. The only eschatological truth I am willing to fall on my sword over is the return of Christ and the future judgment. While I have strong convictions on other eschatological areas, they are not set in concrete.

The Baptist theologian George Eldon Ladd made waves with his view of inaugurated eschatology. He also held to the historic premillennial position (not dispensational premillennialism). While I do not hold to historic premillennialism, I do agree with Ladd on some of his inaugurated eschatology. The kingdom of God is here and not yet. We are citizens of the kingdom, although we do not yet enjoy all the benefits of the glorified state. Ladd called this our "blessed hope".

While I do believe that the many prophetic events were fulfilled by AD 70, I am a bit more eclectic in my eschatology than most strict PP's. I am not alone in this view. Indeed, R.C. Sproul wrote a few years about the eclectic opinions of some PP's. I will go more into my eclectic opinions later this evening. Right now I have to head out the door, but I did not want to wait too long in responding to you.

 

Hank,

I am not here to change your mind. At best, all I seek to do is explain the position I hold to. Others can (and will) do what they want. I am not going to invest my time in defending PP. First, no one is interested in hearing it. Second, it will take a lot of time that is best spent doing other things. What I will do is offer an explanation of things and leave the rest to the readers.

I do believe in the future, physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do believe in a coming judgment. I do believe in the eternal state. I do not believe in a pre-wrath rapture of the Church, a literal 7-year tribulation, or a literal 1000 year millennial reign. I believe in one return of the Lord Jesus Christ followed by the final judgment and the ushering in of the eternal state. Could I be wrong on these beliefs? Certainly. Any of us could be wrong, therefore I am not going to write with a haughty or arrogant attitude.

Preterism and Partial Preterism are not the same. In fact, PP's are probably more vocal in their opposition to full preterism than Dispensationalists. The reason that I view PP's as eclectic in their eschatology is that they do hold to a quasi-futurist position on the second coming, the final judgment, and the eternal state. PP's do not hold to the Dispensationalist view of the end times. There is a minority of PP's that hold to historic Premillennialism (a.k.a. Chialism). Historic Premillennialism certainly does not fit the average Dispensationalists view of PP. That is another reason why I point to the eclectic nature of PP.

In the end, the differences between Dispensational eschatology and PP eschatology come down to how each side views Israel and the Church. I hold to Covenant Theology, and therefore see God's dealing with His one called out people in another way than Dispensationalists who see a difference between OT saints and NT saints. Those differences drive our eschatology.

This topic is unlike Calvinist vs. Arminian debates. There are Calvinists who are Dispensationalists. I find that to be an amazing thing, but it is what it is. However, both eschatological positions believe in the return of Christ, the final judgment, and the eternal state. I wish it was as simple as it sounds, but we both know that is not the case.

 

I am not able to. A moderator did that.

 

I am Amil. Most Amils are Partial Preterists.

 

Mostly, although there are other differences that pale in significance to the denial of a future second coming and resurrection of the dead.